Sitting of 4 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Falkirk and District Tramways," presented by Mr. Sinclair; and (under Section 9 of the Act) ordered to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 12th December, and to be printed. [Bill 361.]
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petition from Barton le Street, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  INDO-CHINESE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  Petition from Low Leighton, for suppression; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Moston, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Kidderminster, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONVOCATIONS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK (LETTERS OF BUSINESS).
  Return [presented 29th November] to be printed. [No. 370.]
  STREET BETTING (CONVICTIONS).
  Return [presented 29th November] to be printed. [No. 371.]
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (BERNE, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on the International Conference on Labour Regulation held at Berne, September, 1906, with the Text of the Documents signed at the Conference [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 6th November, 1906, declaring that Alexander Robertson, Telegraph Clerk, Sixth Class, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 27th November, 1906, granting to William Ward, Second Division Clerk, War Office, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 511 (Sierra Leone, Report for 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Imperial Service Order for Police Officials.
  MR. VILLIERS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Imperial Service Order and medal granted to officers and servants of the Post Office and other civil services

  737
  can also be extended to officers and men of the police force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No, Sir, I fear not. The statutes of the Order and medal limit it to members of the civil services of the Crown, and these do not include the police.

  Increase of Salary of Telegraphist at Llandudno.
  MR. IDRIS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist at Llandudno, aged twenty-two years, who is compelled to perform counter duties dealing with money order and savings bank business, is in receipt of 18s. per week; whether he will take into consideration that this officer remained unappointed four years, and that he rendered useful service during this period, and consider the same with a view to granting an increase in his salary.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The sorting clerk and the telegraphist to whom the Question refers is on a scale of pay rising to 44s. a week. He will, in the ordinary course, receive an increase of salary next month. His duties are the ordinary duties of his class.

  Promotion in Dundee Post Office.
  . MR. WILKIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a petition was forwarded from the Dundee branch of the Postal Telegraphs Clerks' Association to the Secretary for Scotland in May last, asking that senior officers should be employed on the writing room duties in Dundee; whether he is aware that promotions have been given to junior officers on these duties at Dundee within the past few years out of proportion to their number; and whether he will consider the advisability of instituting a change in the method of selecting men for these duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The memorial was duly received by the Secretary to the Post Office in Scotland, and he informed the memorialists in reply that the general question of the rotation of writing duties was under consideration at headquarters and that, until a decision was given, he could not give them a de- finite answer. I am myself considering the general question, and I hope to be able to give a decision soon.

  Vacancies for Male Learnerships in Dublin.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if there will be a competitive examination early next year in Dublin for male learners; and, if so, how many vacancies will be reserved for postmen in the limited section.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) An open competition for six male learnerships in Dublin will be held in January. Postmen candidates will not in future have to wait their turn on the learner class, but will be allowed to compete for places as sorting clerk and telegraphist direct. There will thus be no places to offer to postmen until those who are now waiting on the learner class have received appointments.

  Suggested British Consul at Lorient and Hennebont.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received the promised Report as to the desirability of appointing a consul (unpaid) to represent British interests at the ports of Lorient and Hennebont.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Sir H. Austin Lee has made certain recommendations with regard to consular appointments in Franco, but has so far not expressed his views upon the hon. Member's suggestion. His trip is however, not completed, and I am stil, awaiting further proposals from him.

  Tranfers of Telegraphists.
  MR. WOOD: To ask the Postmaster General whether any general rule exists that determines the position of telegraphists transferred from one office to another, at their own request or for departmental purposes, with reference to the duties expected of them; and whether, for the allocation of the quantity and quality of work, the whole period of an officer's service is computed, irrespective of the time spent in any particular office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Transferred officers are employed as a

  739
  rule on duties generally performed by officers of similar service and pay. A period of probation may be necessary after transfer; but, generally speaking, the allocation of duties depends upon the qualifications of the officers concerned, and is not governed solely by seniority or length of service.

  Amount of Foreign Meat Condemned.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a Return of the amount of refrigerated and frozen beef condemned by the inspectors since 1st July, 1906, with the ports of origin, where known, and the names of the consignors.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. The Local Government Board have not in their possession the information desired, and it would be necessary, in order to obtain it, to apply to some 1,800 local authorities in England and Wales alone. It is very doubtful whether the information could in all cases be obtained, especially as regards the names of the foreign consignors. It appears to me that the Return would be so far from being trustworthy and complete that it would not serve any useful purpose. In these circumstances, I regret that I do not see my way to assent to its being given.

  Imported Meat and the United States Beef Trust.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what proportion of refrigerated meat imported into the United Kingdom is controlled by the United States Beef Trust.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Taking the average of the last five years, a little over half of the fresh beef imported into the United Kingdom has come from the United States. I am unable to say what proportion of this was controlled by the Beef Trust.

  Uncertified Deaths,
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of deaths the causes of which were not certified in each of the years from 1902 to 1905.
  740
  (Answered by Secretary Gladstone.) The numbers are as follows:—In 1902, 9,654; in 1903, 8,721; in 1904, 8,882; and in 1905, 8,446.

  Repair of Roadway adjoining Old Palace Yard.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the roadway between Old Palace Yard and Millbank is repairable by the Office of Works; and, if so, when it is intended to replace the present ancient and worn-out granite setts by pavement of a more modern and less noisy kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The portion of the roadway only between Old Palace Yard and College Street is repairable by the Office of Works, and will be repaved shortly by the London County Council under Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1900.

  Chairmen of Library Committees.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any case or cases in which a member of a library committee co-opted under Section 8 (1) of the London Government Act, 1899, has been elected chairman of the said committee; and whether the Board would see any objection to such an appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not aware of any case of the kind, but I see no objection to the arrangement. I have, however, no jurisdiction in the matter.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Chocolate Making at Deptford.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how much chocolate has been manufactured at the Deptford victualling yard since December, 1905; how much of this was for use in the Navy; and how much of this amount was for the (Military) Indian State Office.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): No chocolate has been manufactured at the Deptford victualling yard since December, 1905, last year's conversion having ceased in that month. Climatic conditions render it inadvisable to manufacture except in the winter months. The manufacturing season for 1906–1907 is about to commence, and about 800,000 lbs. will be manufactured, all for Navy service.

  Flour Stocks at Deptford.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, on 27th November, the s.s. "Helmesmen" was at Deptford waiting to convey flour to the ships "Swift-sure," "Triumph," and "Illustrious," which wore lying at Portland, and on that date there was not one pound of flour in stock; and whether, in view of the detriment to the public service of such want of attention to Admiralty orders by private contractors, he will consider the advisability of using the flour mill at Deptford to its fullest capacity to avoid this state of affairs in future.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There has not been any failure on the part of the contractors for flour to furnish supplies promptly. The short delay in this particular instance was on the part of the Admiralty in deciding on the merits of the different samples, and the contractors commenced supplies as soon as the order was placed. The stocks of flour at the victualling yards are kept low advisedly, as it is of importance that this article should be issued in a perfectly fresh condition. There is no difficulty in obtaining ample supplies at short notice from the trade, whenever required, and it is not proposed to revert to the old system of direct Government manufacture.

  Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what accommodation exists for cavalry at Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): These barracks were not intended for cavalry, the appropriation being as follows:—1 Infantry Battalion, 1 Depot Royal Field Artillery and Headquarters,
  742
  West of Scotland Artillery. The latest returns show the following number of cavalry as quartered there:—5 officers, 151 men, 149 horses. They are the overflow of the regiment whose headquarters are at Piershill which is too small to hold an entire cavalry regiment.
  MR. PIRIE: Is it the intention of the Government to discontinue the Maryhill barracks as a cavalry station? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration before coming to a decision the undesirability of leaving a large centre like Glasgow without cavalry?
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply that the whole matter had been considered.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the troops be removed from Glasgow when the Scots Greys go from Edinburgh?
  MR. HALDANE: It is highly probable.
  MR. PIRIE: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this question before a final discussion is taken?
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend can move a vote of "No Confidence" on the Estimates.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to Lord Rosebery's threat, that if the cavalry are removed from Scotland he will become a Home Ruler?

  Sub-Targets for the Army.
  MR. GUY BARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether applications have been received from general officers commanding and officers commanding battalions for the issue of sub-targets for the use of the troops under their command.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the affirmative.
  MR. GUY BARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Governments of Russia, Germany, and France are experimenting with the sub-target with a view to its adoption in their armies.
  MR. HALDANE: I have no information on this subject.

  Volunteer Camps.
  MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Volunteers, officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, who attended camp for fourteen days training with the Field Army Brigades for each of the last three years.
  MR. HALDANE: The numbers are as follows:—

  Officers.

  N.C.O's and Men.

  1904

  547

  19,594

  1905

  571

  19,166

  1906

  590

  19,747

  MR. McCRAE: Having regard to the importance of these figures, cannot the right hon. Gentleman devise some means of giving the fourteen days training next year?
  MR. HALDANEreplied that he had considered the matter from all points of view.

  State Manufactories.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the quantity of costly machinery now lying idle or only partially employed at Woolwich Arsenal, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small committee of experts to report on how far the machinery could be utilised in the production of articles of peace needed by Departments of the Government, other than the War Office; and whether much of the waste material might be turned to profitable account in various departments, especially the wood department.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is not also a large quantity of costly machinery now lying idle or almost idle in private factories throughout the country, and if, in consequence, a large number of men not less worthy than those of Woolwich Arsensal are out of work?
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid I cannot succumb to the temptations held out by either of the hon. Gentlemen. I do
  744
  not think that any useful result would come from the appointment of such a committee. The question is a broad one of principle, whether it is desirable that the Government should attempt the general business of manufacture of articles which can easily and at all times be obtained from the trade. I am not prepared to undertake the financial risk of such an enterprise.

  Technical Training of Soldiers.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the circular issued to General Officers Commanding at Home and Abroad, urging them to act in respect to the technical training of soldiers so as to fit them for positions in civil life, contains any reference to the necessity of pensioned ex-soldiers not being employed at wages below the standard in the various trades; whether he has made any recommendation on these lines to bodies existing to secure employment for ex-soldiers; and whether he will state the manner in which certificates of trade proficiency are to be issued to the men.
  MR. HALDANE: The circular letter to which the hon. Member refers was confined to suggestions as to the lines on which technical instruction might best be imparted to the soldier. The letter did not deal with the question of wages or conditions of employment, nor have any recommendations on this subject been made to employment agencies. No decision has been arrived at on the question of the issue of trade proficiency certificates.

  Lord Esher's Committee.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Hampshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to consider the formation of a national army which has been assembled under the presidency of Lord Esher, has yet reported; and will he lay the Report of the Committee upon the Table of the House as soon as it is received.
  MR. HALDANE: The Committee in question was assembled to advise on such matters connected with the formation of a national army as might be referred to it from time to time, and it still exists

  745
  for this purpose. Hitherto its functions have been wholly of a consultative nature, but should any Report be ultimately furnished, I will consider whether it might not be laid on the Table of the House.

  Army Recruiting.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Hampshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to put any check upon recruiting during the current financial year; and, if so, in which branch or branches of the Service will the recruiting be arrested.
  MR. HALDANE: Recruiting is only checked for any branch of the Service when the establishment of that branch is reached and is likely to be exceeded. This principle has been and is being applied.

  Bengal Director of Public Instruction.
  DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House when it is intended to restore to his ordinary duties the member of the Indian civil service who has been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal to be director of public instruction in that province, in disregard of public and departmental protests; and whether due consideration will be paid to public feeling in the matter by the selection of a member of the Indian educational service to succeed him in that office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): As I have already stated, I have no reason to think that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal has abandoned the intention which he expressed in 1905, of replacing Mr. Earle by a member of the Indian educational service within two or three years from that time; but I do not know the precise date at which he pro- poses to effect the change.

  Mohindar College, Patiala.
  DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. E. Candler, formerly a newspaper correspondent, who was on 21st September appointed temporarily to be a member of the Indian educational service, has now
  746
  been appointed to be principal of the Maharajah's College in the Patiala State and, if so, whether he has given his sanction to this appointment, in view of the rule which prohibits the employment of any European in an Indian native state without such sanction; whether the appointment was offered to any of the distinguished University graduates, Indian and European, who are permanent members of the Indian educational service; and whether, seeing that the Patiala College has been for the past seventeen years in charge of a highly qualified Indian principal who has occupied the post with credit, and also that no reason has been publicly assigned for his supersession, he will state why the appointment of a gentleman, by profession a journalist, to this important educational office, has been permitted.
  MR. MORLEY: I am aware that there was a proposal to appoint a European graduate to the Mohindar College, Patiala, but I do not know if Mr. Candler (who is a graduate of the University of Cambridge) is the person selected. It is in the competence of the Government of India to sanction the employment of Europeans in native states.

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Colonial Office to bring prominently before the next Colonial Conference the desirability of according to British Indians resident in the Colonies the same rights and privileges as those granted to other British subjects.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE OR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester N.W.): The agenda for the Colonial Conference has not yet been settled, and prominence must be given in he first place to those subjects which the Colonies themselves intimate a desire to discuss. It is, at present, impossible to say what place in the discussions can be allotted to the subject referred to by the hon. Member.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERIs it expected that representatives of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will be able to come?
  THE SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  Cultivation of Opium in China.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the cultivation of opium in China is under observation and report, in order to ascertaining whether the recent edict of the Chinese Government is being effectively enforced within the Empire.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): In answer to other Questions I have already explained the difficulty of procuring trustworthy information as to the area of opium cultivation. But the Consuls in China will report to the best of their ability as to the manner in which the edict will be carried into effect.

  Girl Labour in Egyptian Cotton Mills.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at Mansourah, in Egypt, native girls of twelve and fourteen years work in the cotton mills from four o'clock in the morning to six o'clock at night, and at times till ten o'clock at night, in a highly deleterious atmosphere, at a wage of from 10 to 15 cents a day; whether it is in the competence of the British Control to urge on the Egyptian Government remedial interference with this state of things; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter. May I say that when I handed the Question in at the Table the words were "whether it is a fact" and not "whether he is aware."
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If anything of this kind exists, the proper remedy would be factory legislation. But to make that binding on Europeans, who own most of the factories, would of course require the consent of all the Powers, and it would be necessary for the Egyptian Government to approach them. I will make inquiry into the facts stated by the hon. Member. Till that has been done I cannot say what action is required or can be taken.

  Tax Surveyors.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-
  748
  chequer what is the number of tax surveys in the Kingdom in which there is no established officer besides the surveyors; what is the number of un-established clerks employed in such districts; what is the average number of days per annum upon which the surveyors in such districts are absent on leave or on official business; and by whom the daily business of the office is transacted during the absence of the surveyor.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire E.): (1) 216; (2) 428; (3) twenty-six days On leave—the number of days upon which a surveyor is wholly absent from his office on official duties is not available. (4) In forty-one out of the 216 districts above-mentioned (1), there are other surveyors in the same building, who are in charge during the absence of their colleagues. In the remaining 175 districts, the routine work is performed by the clerks; but the district is in charge of the "linked" surveyor, who deals with all important matters, visiting the office as required.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date established clerks of the lower or second division were first employed on the outdoor clerical staff of the tax-surveying department: when the employment of such clerks ceased; what was the maximum number employed at any one time; and what was the number of surveys in which no established clerks were employed during the period of employment of such established clerks.
  MR. ASQUITH: (1) 1877; (2) 1894; (3) 54; (4) 0.

  Race Suicide.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to Mr. Sidney Webb's inquiries and conclusions as to race suicide; and whether he will consider the propriety of embodying in any future graduation of the Income Tax rebates dependent on the number of children in a family.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have read Mr. Webb's interesting papers, though, I confess, without realising their bearing

  749
  upon the graduation of the Income Tax. But, in the consideration which I am giving to the subject, I will not lose sight of my hon. friend's suggestion, which would, however, amount to a revival of the lex Papia Poppaca.
  DR. HAZEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the date of the lex Papia Poppaca?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid I must ask for notice.

  The German Gipsies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has at length succeeded in ridding the country of those bands of foreign gipsies who for the past six months have put the counties of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, North-amptonshire, Lancashire and Nottingham-shire, and many of the cities and boroughs within them, to great expense, and exposed the inhabitants to assaults, damage, and other crimes, besides the evils of begging and fortune telling and divers contagious disorders.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Yes, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth in reply to his Question yesterday, † the two bands of gipsies who have for some time been wandering about the country were successfully repatriated last week.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has got rid of the gipsies will he introduce legislation to prevent them coming in again?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid that under present circumstances I can hold out no hope of that.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon Gentleman instruct the Immigration Board not to admit them again?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend knows I have no power to do that.

  Marshgate Arms, Richmond.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the Marshgate Arms, Richmond, the licence of which was referred by the licensing authority in March, 1905, and refused subject to compensation in June, 1905, the compensation being settled by the Inland Revenue in January, 1906; whether he is aware that these licensed premises are now still open for sale owing to disputes among the parties interested over the division of the compensation money; and whether he will consider how best to shorten, by amending legislation, this procedure.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The licensed premises in question have hitherto remained open because the compensation money had not been determined. This determination has now, I understand, been practically finished, and only awaits the completion of the necessary formalities. The question of the procedure for assessing compensation will be very carefully considered in connection with the forthcoming Licensing Bill.

  Assistant Factory Inspectors
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to state whether he has been able to reform the position of the assistant factory inspectors.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the full written Answer which I gave on the 28th November in reply to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Sunderland ‡.

  Production of Calf Lymph.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the vaccination of calves, and to the fact that the calf is strapped down upon the operating table, that its belly is then shaved, that 100 or more cuts are then made with a knife in its belly, and that vaccine matter is then rubbed into these cuts; will he say if the calf is put under anæsthetics during this operation; and

  751
  whether, in view of the law preventing cruelty to animals, he will cause proceedings to be taken, or, if necessary, introduce legislation to deal with this question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have communicated with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The operation is not an experiment, and therefore does not come within the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, which is limited to the control of experiments. It is open to any person to take proceedings under the general law relating to cruelty to animals.

  Convict Labour.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the inmates of convict prisons in the United Kingdom are precluded from the production of goods which can be sold to the public; and whether he will consider the desirability of allowing such occupation in prisons as will be useful employment to the inmates.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: There is no rule or practice which forbids the production by prisoners of goods which can be sold to the public; but, as a matter of fact, prison labour in convict and in local prisons is employed almost entirely where it is not required for prison service, building, etc., on the fulfilment of orders received from the various Government Departments. The supply of such orders is, generally speaking, sufficient to ensure the employment of prisoners on occupations which are both useful and interesting, and calculated, not only to instil the habit of work, but to provide (where the sentence is sufficiently long to admit of effective instruction) a means of gaining a livelihood on discharge.

  Milan Exhibition.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the British exhibitors at the Milan Exhibition, especially in the section devoted to applied arts, owing to the bad organisation and arrangements of the British exhibits; will he say who is responsible for this organisation and for
  752
  the status of the firms exhibiting; what his qualifications were; and whether he proposes to consider how the British Department of international exhibitions may be better organised in future.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The British section of the Milan Exhibition was organised by an unofficial Commission composed of a number of representative men chiefly drawn from British chambers of commerce and other bodies directly concerned with trade and industry. I understand that this body was formed mainly under the auspices of the London Chamber of Commerce. I am informed that no complaints of the character indicated in the Question have reached the Commission. As regards the last part of the Question, I may remind my hon. friend that a departmental committee is sitting to consider the questions affecting the participation of this country in international exhibitions.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Chamber of Commerce is not exactly the best Chamber to go to in connection with matters relating to manufactures, and fine arts especially?
  [No answer was given.]

  Railway Inspection by the Board of Trade.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost to the nation of the present Government control and inspection of the railways of the United Kingdom, including the salaries of the Railway Commissioners and a proper quota of the Board of Trade Vote.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The cost of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade during the year 1905–6, including salaries, travelling and legal expenses, etc., was £12,847. This does not include cost of office accommodation or printing, or certain other expenses that cannot be allocated. On the other hand the Railway Department also deals with tramways and other subjects not connected with railways, so that for my hon. friend's purposes a considerable deduction, the amount of which cannot be accurately

  753
  estimated, should be made on this account. The Railway and Canal Commission is a judicial body and not a Department of the Board of Trade. I am informed that the expenditure of that body in 1905–6 amounted to £6,140.

  Municipal Trading.
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed that, among the 8,593 cases of bankruptcy reported by the Inspector-General of Bankruptcy during 1905, there is not one municipal trading concern; and whether, in view of that and other advantages connected with the system of municipal trading, he will seek the cooperation of the President of the Local Government Board with a view to the promotion of a Bill empowering municipalities to undertake the control of all such industries as a poll of the ratepayers; shall decide upon.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Bankruptey proceedings do not apply in the case of municipal trading concerns, and their entire absence from the statistics of bankruptcy does not therefore afford any indication of their prosperity or otherwise.

  Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade has, during the present year, been appointed on any Commissions or Committees other than the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, the South African Committee of Inquiry into the Methods of Self-government for the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings; how long he was absent from England on the South African Committee; whether it is usual to appoint the heads of the permanent staff of important departments of State upon committees of inquiry into matters unconnected with the business of such departments, and which necessitates their absence from this country for many months; did the Controller-General of the Commercial, Labour, and Statistical Department perform the ordinary functions of the Permanent Secretary
  754
  during the absence of the latter in South Africa, and, if not, who performed them; and did the Permanent Secretary fully resume his duties as such upon his return from South Africa in July.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and to the second part thirteen weeks. As to the third part, I can add nothing to the replies which have been given by the Prime Minister and by myself to the noble Lord the Member for the Horsham Division on 2nd April, and to my hon. friend on the 28th ultimo.†
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: But did he fully resume his duties as Permanent Secretary upon his return?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.

  Minerals-Wages and Royalties.
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the value of the various minerals raised in the United Kingdom during 1905 amounted to £95,870,700; and whether he can say how much of this sum was paid in wages and how much was appropriated by the owners of mineral rights, royalties and wayleaves.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The facts stated in the first part of the Question fire correct. It is not possible to state the aggregate amount paid in wages in the mining industries, as no exhaustive inquiry has taken place into the earnings of the various classes of workpeople in the United Kingdom since 1886. An-other inquiry of a similar character is now about to be made, and when that is completed it is hoped that definite information with regard to earnings in the mining industry will be available. The latest information available as to mining royalties and wayleaves is that collected by the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, 1889–93, who estimated the amount paid in royalties and wayleaves on the output of 1889 at £4,873,000.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that during the last five years the average profits including wages for

  755
  the mines of the United Kingdom have amounted to £21,000,000, whereas the average profits of the preceding five years were £9,500,000? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increase of the wages during that time was in the same proportion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Sea-going Engineers.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he contemplates bringing in a Bill having for its object the regulation of certificates of competency of sea - going engineers; and, if so, would he state when such Bill will be brought forward.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The requirements as to the certificates to be held by engineers on British ships are contained in Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The Board of Trade do not see their way at present to introduce further legislation, but the matter will not be lost sight of.

  North Glamorgan Official Receiver.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can say, approximately, what income arises from the official receivership of the Merthyr district; and whether, in view of the practice during the past five or ten years to fill vacancies occurring among the official receivers by appointing only members of the legal profession or persons having special knowledge of, or experience in the administration of the Bankruptcy Laws, he will explain why, in making the recent appointment, he selected a gentleman who had been connected with the Press at Carnarvon before he took up hi? present position of manager and editor of the Brecon and Radnor Express.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The late official receiver in this district was paid by fees, the gross amount of which varied very widely from year to year, from £600 to £1,800. I have no information as to his office expenditure, and am therefore unable to estimate the net income. As regards the last part of the Question I do not think I can add anything to the
  756
  reply given by me to my hon. friend on Wednesday last.†
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has any decision been come to as to where the head office is to be?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, the chief inspector is still looking into the matter.

  Hull Gate Signalmen.
  MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the answer given to his Department by the North Eastern Railway Company respecting the hours of gate signalmen at Hull, the recent Returns of the hours worked by railwaymen represent the actual hours worked by the various servants to whom those Returns apply.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board are assured by the railway company that the Returns in question represent the actual hours worked, including all travelling time paid for.
  MR. HUDSON: How can they possibly have returned the true state of affairs when the company say they did not know that such long hours were worked?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must ask for notice of that.

  Express Trains on the East Coast Route.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the number of cases of break-away of express passenger trains on the East Coast Route of England (comprising the Great Northern, North Eastern, and North British Railway systems); how many cases have occurred during the past twelve months, and at what speed the trains wore running when these breaks-away occurred; what is the name of the automatic coupling in use; how many alterations have been made in it during the above-mentioned period; and if it is still in its experimental stage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am in communication with the companies named in the hon. Member's Question and will inform him in due course of the result of my inquiries.

  Rate-aided Vaccination.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the statement in the Blue-book on Vaccination Expenses (Cd. 2421, 1905), that in the four years ended Lady Day, 1903, there wore 1,168,058 re-vaccinations charged to the rates, and if he will state under what statute the rates can be charged with re-vaccination, except in the case of voluntary applications for re-vaccination; if he has any official information showing that the bulk of these re-vaccinations were of persons who did not voluntarily apply for re-vaccination, but were compelled to do so by their employers on pain of dismissal; and if the auditors of the Local Government Board have surcharged the guardians with any portion of the amount paid for these re-vaccinations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN; BURNS, Battersea): I am aware of the number of revaccinations the cost, of which was charged to the rates in the period referred to. I have no information to show that the bulk of these re-vaccinations: were of persons who did not voluntarily apply for re-vaccination, nor do I know of any surcharges made on the ground that any of the applications were not voluntary. It is the duty of the Public Vaccinator to re-vaccinate any person applying to him for the purpose who is not less than ten years old and has not been primarily vaccinated within ten years, and, subject to the observance of certain conditions which do not affect the present matter, he is entitled under Section 8 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, as amended by later Acts, to be paid for these re-vaccinations out of the rates. Whether the applications made to him are voluntary or not seems to be immaterial.

  Burnley Vaccination Officer.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the magistrates at the Burnley Police Court concerning the conduct of the vaccination officer of that union, in which, amongst other things, it was stated that he had instituted prosecutions four, six, eight,: and even eleven years after the birth of
  758
  the children in question; whether he is aware that in one case a summons was taken out two and a half years after a child's death; and whether he will take steps to give the board of guardians control over this vaccination officer, so that the present unsatisfactory state of affairs may be ended.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings before the justices. I understand that they have not been finished, as some of the cases, including the one specially referred to in the Question, were adjourned. I am not empowered to take action of the kind suggested by my hon. friend.
  MR. MADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last three years no less than £250 has been expended by the working classes here in fines and costs.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I believe that statement is correct. I am looking into that matter.

  Norwich Telegraphists' Grievances.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several Norwich telegraphists were asked in October last to take special duty at Lowestoft, and wore informed that their subsistence allowance would be 3s. per day; that the men declined to accept this rate; that two men were then ordered to proceed on this allowance, notwithstanding the fact that the recognised subsistence allowance is 5s. per day; and that the local authorities were aware that men accepting less than the recognised rate are liable to expulsion from membership of their trade union; and whether, seeing that the authorities have now raised the allowance to 4s. per day in deference to the repeated protests of the men, he will investigate the circumstances and take steps to obviate a recurrence of the grievance.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The question of the subsistence allowance is under my consideration. But the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that there has been, or is, a recognised subsistence allowance of 5s. a

  759
  day. The subsistence allowance is the repayment of necessary additional expenses of maintenance incurred by officers absent from their headquarters on official business, and will thus necessarily van' according to the circumstances under which the duty is performed.

  Radiotelegraphic Conference.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when the copies of the protocols and regulations in connection with the Radio-telegraphic Convention will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that copies of the Radiotelegraphic Convention and of the other documents will be in the hands of Members in the course of a few days.

  Military Drill in Schools.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Education Act of New Zealand requires that all boys should be instructed in military drill and all boys and girls over eight be taught physical drill; that, in forming twenty-eight battalions of 264 companies of 127,000 cadets, training them to shoot, and sending them annually to camp, the Colony spends over £5,000 a year with the approbation of the parents; and if he can inform the House how many cadet battalions and companies have been formed in the elementary public schools under his control, and what pecuniary encouragement is extended to them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I understand that the hon. Member's statement of the law in New Zealand on the matter of military drill for boys is accurate, but he seems to have been misinformed in regard to the number of cadets, the figures quoted by him being, apparently, the number of children receiving physical instruction, and therefore including the girls. I imagine, therefore, that even in New Zealand this does not mean that this number of scholars have all received military instruction, or been trained to shoot. With regard to the third paragraph of the Question, if the hon. Member desires to know how many
  760
  "cadet battalions and companies" have been organised in England and Wales as part of the organisation of a public elementary school as such, the reply is that there are none. As to the number of "cadet battalions and companies" that may have been organised voluntarily from among boys who attend public elementary schools, I have no information; being apparently wholly military in purpose, they would in no way come within the purview of the Board of Education.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTrepeated the last part of his Question. What pecuniary assistance was extended to such cadet battalions and companies?
  MR. BIRRELL: None at all.

  Lytham School Charities.
  MR. HIGHAM; I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the names of the elementary schools which have been assisted by grants in aid of building out of the Lytham School Charities, Lancashire; the amount of assistance in each case; and whether a condition as to undenominational religious instruction was imposed when the grants were made.
  MR. BIRRELL: There are three public elementary schools which are the property of the Lytham School Charities. The early history of the schools of the foundation is obscure, but the following facts have been ascertained as to the existing schools, the names of which as they appear in the official list are as follows;—Lytham Endowed Church of England School, which received a grant from the funds of the charities towards cost of buildings of £812 5s. 0d. in 1856; (2) St. Anne on-the-Sea, Hey-house's Endowed School, which received £1,688 10s. 7d. in 1880 and 1893; and (3) Lytham St. John's Church of England School, which received £1,000 0s. 0d. in 1899. As regards St. John's School, the Charity Commissioners made it an express condition of the grant of £1,000 from the Charities that the school site should be conveyed to the trustees on trusts containing no denominational provisions. In the case of the other schools, no such condition was apparently

  761
  made. It was, however, a term of the general arrangement arrived at in 1898 at the local inquiry that in each of the three schools provision should be made for "Bible" instruction to be given in a separate room by a member of the staff to all children whose parents desired. This particular term was not expressly mentioned in the Charity Commission scheme of 1899, which directed simply; that in each of the three elementary schools of the foundation "religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith" should be given under regulations to be made from time to time by the managers of each school. No alteration in these regulations was to take effect until the expiration of not less than one year after notice of the alteration had been given. I am not aware of any alteration having been made.
  MR. HIGHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if as a matter of fact in connection with St. John's School, although there is a stipulation that no denominational instruction should be given, the scholars are marched to the Church of England on Holy days?
  M R. BIRRELL: I will inquire into that.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Lytham Charities (Lancashire) were left for the schooling of the poor children of Lytham, and that the ratepayers of that parish are paying by means of the poor rate for the elementary education of the children of the parish, he will consider the advisability of arranging that the income derivable from the charity, or a portion of it, shall be paid to the overseers for the purposes of the trust, viz., in relief of the cost of elementary education.
  MR. BIRRELL: It does not appear to be the case that the whole of the consolidated charities, now known as the "Lytham School Charities," were originally founded specifically for the schooling of the poor children of Lytham. The original trusts are, however, now super seded by the trusts of schemes made in 1899 by the Charity Commissioners,
  762
  under which a yearly sum of £450 must, and a further yearly sum "not exceeding £200" may, be applied to purposes of elementary education. The Board have informed the local education authority that, in their opinion, the yearly sum of £450 is subject to the proviso in Section 13 of the Education Act, 1902; but it is for the trustees and the local education authority, in the first instance, to agree as to the portion, if any, of that sum which should be applied in relief of the local rates. Unless there is a difference between the parties concerned, the Board of Education have no power to determine the amount which should be applied in relief of the local rates. The Board have no information that any such difference has arisen. In any event, any share of the income applicable to relief of the local rates must be paid in the first instance to the local education authority and not to the overseers. And the hon. Member should direct his inquiries to the Lancashire County Council, not to the Board of Education, if he desires to investigate the present allocation of the £450.
  MR. HIGHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a grant of £450 for elementary education is sufficient, seeing that this charity is now bringing in £3,000 a year, and within the course of the next eight or ten years will be bringing in at least £10,000 a year?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot alter a scheme which has been laid on the Table of the House and has the authority of an Act of Parliament.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state how much money from the Lytham Charities (Lancashire) is being used for the erection of a secondary school, and how much for the purchase of land for the same; what fees are intended to be charged at the proposed school, and if he will insist upon a substantial number of places being reserved free for the children of poor parents, seeing that these charities wore left solely for such children; and if he will prohibit the building of any place of worship in connection with the school, so that the children may attend such places as may be selected by their parents.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first Question is £31,000, and to the second £25,000, I believe. Under the scheme the fees must not be less than £6 nor more than £12 a year; proposals are under consideration for permitting a maximum of £15 for day scholars, and for allowing some boarding pupils at not more than £60 a year for board and residence. Some 20 per cent, of the total places in the school can, under the scheme, be provided free from any fee and with additional benefits of from £5 to £10 as maintenance bursaries. No proposal has been submitted to the Board for the erection of a place of worship in connection with the school.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Are the schemes of the Charity Commissioners ever submitted to the Board of Education for approval?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should think so.

  Council of Agricultural Research.
  MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will press forward the negotiations concerning | the proposed Council of Agricultural Research, in order that the necessary steps may be taken to secure financial aid from the Treasury in the next Budget Statement.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board fully realise the importance and pressing necessity of the scientific investigation of agricultural problems and they will spare no pains to secure improvement both in regard to organisation and the financial resources available for the purpose. The matter is not however free from difficulty, and I should be very glad to have an opportunity of personal conference with the hon. Member respecting it.

  Scottish Law Courts.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the plans for the proposed alterations upon the Scottish Law Courts in Edinburgh have been drawn up; whether they have been submitted to the Faculty of Advocates; and if he can now state when they will be proceeded with.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): Certain plans have been prepared, which have been seen by the Faculty of Advocates and altered to meet their views. They are under the most careful consideration, but at this moment I am not able to make a more definite announcement.

  Edinburgh Public Gardens.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Edinburgh Town Council instructed its head gardener to apply to the local distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen's Act of 1905 for extra hands to keep the public gardens in proper order, and that the distress committee paid one-half of the wages of men supplied and the corporation the other half; whether he is aware that the Edinburgh Trades and Labour Council have objected to this action, on the grounds that it is illegal to relieve the rates by paying to a public body half the wages of men employed to perform useful and necessary labour; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to prevent this and other public bodies so using the Act?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The particulars stated by the hon. Member are materially correct. The town council had in view solely the assistance of several deserving men out of employment who had registered their names with the distress committee; but for this reason, the work in the gardens would not have been undertaken at the time. The proportion of the wages to be paid by distress committees in such circumstances is a matter for arrangement between the parties concerned. There does not appear to have been any illegal action in this case, and I do not, therefore, propose to interfere. These payments have been made out of funds contributed privately, but in future where the destination of monies voted by Parliament is concerned no payments will be sanctioned which involve relief of the rates.
  MR. WARD (Stoke-upon-Trent)Were these men employed full time on half wages?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have given the House all the information I have.

  Royal Society of Edinburgh
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what sum, if any, the Treasury propose to give to the Royal Society of Edinburgh to enable them to secure suitable accommodation.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the Report of the Departmental Committee, what steps he intends to take with regard to housing the Royal Society in Edinburgh; and what sum of money the Treasury has arranged to grant.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Negotiations with a view to housing the Royal Society in a suitable way are now in progress, and I hope to be in a position to make a full statement upon the Committee stage of the Bill.

  Fish Curing Brands.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial signed by fish curers in the principal fishing districts of Kerry, Cork, and Clare, urging the adoption of a Government brand; and whether any and, if so, what steps will be taken to adopt a system which has been so successful in Scotland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): I have received the memorial referred to in the Question. As I stated in reply to a Question on 30th May last, I referred several resolutions of the same kind to the Committee which is inquiring into the constitution and working of the Department, and I am now informed that the Committee have taken evidence upon the question of a Government brand for Irish fish, and that the matter is under their consideration.

  Vandeleur Estate, Kilrush.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the appeals of nine tenants on the Vandeleur
  766
  estate at Kilrush, in the county of Clare, were heard at Ennis on the 12th June, 1906; whether four of these appeals have been fixed by Judge Fitzgerald, and the other five are yet undecided; and if he will have inquiries made as to the reason of the appeals not having been fixed.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that in the cases of the five undecided appeals referred to in the Question, the holdings are either wholly or partly within the urban district of Kilrush, and some delay has occurred in ascertaining the amounts of the urban rates payable in respect of these holdings. This information has now been obtained, and judgment in the cases will be given in the course of a few days.

  Mullingar Police.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain if District-Inspector Rutledge, of Mullingar, reported to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary the formal complaint of the magistrates, Messrs. Sullivan, Hyde and Nooney, made to him in the magistrates' room on the 23rd June last, regarding Constable Scott's illegal conduct in a specific case; if any officer reported repeated reprimands administered from the Bench to Scott for his improper and illegal conduct; is it the practice, as in this case. to allow police officers to nullify the complaints of magistrates, by failing to report them, and then to deny and ignore the complaints and promote the constable reprimanded; whether, seeing that Scott failed to pass the requisite examination for promotion, and is not the senior constable in his district, he will explain the reason for his promotion; and, having regard to a letter from one of the magistrates placed in his hands, will he have this promotion reconsidered.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that at Mullingar Petty Sessions before Messrs. Sullivan, Hyde and Nooney, Constable Scott prosecuted a man for drunkenness. The defendant was unanimously convicted by the magistrates on Constable Scott's evidence. When the Court had risen, Mr. Nooney asked District-Inspector

  767
  Rutledge to come to the magistrates' room, and he there stated that he strongly disapproved of the manner in which Constable Scott gave his evidence in the case referred to, and he desired the District-Inspector to tell the constable so. Mr. Hyde, J.P., said it was only fair to state that the magistrates had previously on several occasions commended the constable from the Bench for the manner in which he brought up cases. Mr. Sullivan, R.M., remarked that the constable was perhaps too keen in the way in which he gave evidence on that day. The District-Inspector did not regard this conversation as a formal complaint by the magistrates and did not therefore report the matter to the Inspector-General. I am informed that there is no foundation for the suggestion that Constable Scott has been repeatedly reprimanded from the Bench. The constable passed the requisite examination for promotion in 1901. The reasons for his promotion were stated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on 14th November, The Inspector-General understands that there is no reason for the suggestion that the magistrates generally are dissatisfied with the promotion, though one magistrate appears to be dissatisfied. The promotion of constables rests with the Inspector-General, who informs me that he sees no reason for re-considering the decision arrived at.

  Mr. Barrington's Newport Estate.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland is he aware that three years ago Mr. John B. Barrington sold to his tenants on his property at Castlewaller, Newport, county Tipperary, and can he say what progress has since been made with the Land Purchase Commission, or have the tenants as yet received their vesting orders; is he aware that Thomas Molony, one of the Castlewaller tenants, was evicted soon after the terms of purchase were arranged; has Mr. Barrington since consented to reinstate Mr. Molony; and, if not, will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to put themselves in communication with Mr. Barrington so as to bring about Mr. Molony's restoration to his farm in Castlewaller.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to have yet been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale which may be pending. The Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas Moloney, and will have the case inquired into as soon as may be possible.
  MR. LUNDON: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the negotiations for the sale of the estate have been going on for three and a half years?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information on that point before me.

  Mayberry Estate, Kenmare.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of the Mayberry estate, near Kenmare, are now in progress; and whether, in view of the fact that there are several evicted tenants on this estate, some of whom have been out of their holdings for nearly twenty years with no means of procuring a livelihood except as labourers, the Estates Commissioners will consider the advisability of purchasing the evicted farms as a separate estate, and enabling these tenants to start fair with the aid of grants for building the houses and stocking the farms, as they have done in the neighbouring Warden estate.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings have yet been instituted before them for the sale of the estate of F. G. Mayberry, which they assume to be the estate referred to in the Question, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale which may be in progress. The Commissioners have received applications from six evicted tenants on the estate, and will have the cases inquired into by their inspector. The Commissioners will consider what steps they may take when they have received the inspector's report.

  Mr. Gradwell, s Coole Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have asked Mr. Richard Gradwell of

  769
  Dowth Hall, Drogheda, to sell his untenanted lands in the rural district of Coole, Westmeath; if they have asked him to restore his evicted tenants or to sell the evicted farms for the purposes of restoration; and, if so, what were the dates of their communications with Mr. Gradwell, and the nature of his replies.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet approached the owner of the estate in question.

  Westmeath Evicted Tenants.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when an inspector from the Estates Commissioners will be in Westmeath for the purpose of doing something practical for evicted tenants there, the past three years alleged consideration by the Commissioners having produced no result.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they hope to have inquiries made by an inspector in the early part of next year into the cases of evicted tenants in county Westmeath whose applications for reinstatement have not yet been disposed of.

  Westmeath Untenanted Lands.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what it is that prevents the making of provision for evicted tenants in Westmeath, untenanted land being abundant there; how many owners of untenanted land in that county have been asked by the Commissioners to sell it; how many have given favourable replies; and can he say now, after three years working of the Land Act of 1903, when evicted tenants may expect to benefit under that Act.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that inquiries as to untenanted land in county Westmeath are in progress. Eighteen owners of such land have been asked whether they would be prepared to sell. Of these, three have replied in the affirmative, and the Commissioners have directed an inspection; eight have stated that they are not willing to sell the lands to the
  770
  Commissioners; and replies have not yet been received by the Commissioners in the remaining seven cases.

  Lady Bathurst's Cappamore Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the property of Lady Bathurst is being sold to the tenants around Cappamore, county Limerick; and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to put themselves in communication with the agent of Mr. Rochford, of Cahir, county Tipperary, so that the town tenants of Cappamore may be included in the sale.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that no proceedings for the sale of the estate in question have yet been instituted before them; and they state that it is not their practice to insist upon the inclusion of a town or village in an estate which is the subject of proceedings for direct sale from a landlord to tenants.

  Hertertstown Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what progress the Estates Commissioners have made in restoring to his evicted farm in Moohan, Herbertstown, county Limerick, on the Croker estate, Michael Power; is he aware that the Commissioners' inspector was with Kirby the planter, on the 6th instant; will he say if Kirby said to the inspector that he was prepared to leave, provided they supplied him with another farm on the Croker Estate; and, if so, are they taking steps to do so.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have caused inquiry to be made into the case of Michael Power, evicted tenant. Power has been offered a portion of the untenanted land on the estate, but has so far refused to accept any but the holding from which he was evicted. It does not appear to be the case that Kirby, the present occupant of the farm, has informed the inspector that he was prepared to surrender the farm if another holding were given to him. On the contrary, the inspector has reported that Kirby is not prepared to surrender the holding and accept another in lieu thereof.

  "Duffy and Baily v. Lonsdale."
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the disclosures in the trial of "Duffy and Baily v. Lonsdale," before Mr. Justice Boyd in Dublin on Tuesday; whether he is aware that the defendants pleaded guilty to the posting of a defamatory typewritten notice and a printed placard regarding the plantiff in the town of Longford, where he carries on his business, and had thereby injured him in trade; and whether any proceedings have been instituted by the police.
  MR. BRYCE: My attention had not been called to the matter referred to in the Question, but I have now seen a newspaper report of the case. It appears from that report that the proceedings consisted in a civil action for damages, and it is stated that when the case was called it was announced that a settlement had been arrived at upon terms that the defendent should express regret for the publications and pay plaintiff's costs. No proceedings have been instituted by the police, and I am advised that the case is clearly not one for criminal proceedings by the Crown.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these boycotting notices were posted because the landlord had raised his rents, and is the Mr. Lonsdale referred to the gentleman who is putting a question as to boycotting notices in other parts of Ireland?
  MR. BRYCEsaid he had no information beyond that he had given to the House.
  ME. MACVEAGH: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Kilmanagh Evicted Tenant.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any action on the application of Samuel Calbick, who was evicted from his holding on the Wearing Estate, Kilmanagh, county Kilkenny; whether he is aware that about three years ago the present occupier of the holding offered to
  772
  surrender possession on getting reasonable compensation, such offer being conveyed to the Commissioners, who were unable to deal with it, and that Calbick and his family, having had to live in a dilapidated and insanitary dwelling, became victims of tuberculosis, by which himself and two of his sons died and his wife at present is an incurable invalid; and whether the Commissioners will take special stops to restore the remainder of the family to their holding.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from Samuel Calbick and have referred it to their inspector for inquiry with the view of effecting a settlement. The Commissioners have as yet no information in regard to the circumstances alleged in the remainder of the Question, but will deal with the matter when they receive their inspector's report.

  Land Commission Appeals.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how-many Land Commission appeals are now pending; what is the cause of delay; and is this matter having his attentfon.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the number of appeals outstanding on the 30th November was 8,392. The number outstanding on the 30th November, 1905, was 11,477. A decrease of 3,085 in the number of outstanding appeals has, therefore, taken place within the last twelve months, and the Commissioners inform me that they believe this rate of decrease will be maintained.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: As this is a matter of extreme urgency cannot the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to deal with it?
  MR. BRYCE: I am aware of the urgency of the matter, and I hope to be able to do something to facilitate matters.

  Castleinch Evicted Tenants.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a claim has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners by the representatives of Thomas Mullins,

  773
  who was evicted in 1888 from a holding on the Castleinch, county Kilkenny, estate of the Karl of Desart; and whether, seeing that the holding has been farmed on the eleven months system by a publican named Martin Murphy, of Kells, he will say what steps, if any, have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate the representative of Mullins to the holding.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that Thomas Mullins was not a tenant of the Earl of Desart and was not evicted by him. Mullins appears to have been at one time a sub-tenant of the late Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, who was one of Lord Desart's tenants. The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not received an application from the representatives of Mullins.

  Irish Land Stock.
  MR. CLANCY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total amount of Stock issued up to date for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903; the total cost of floating such Stock; and the total liability of the Irish Development Fund to make good, under Section 38 of the Act of 1903, the deficiencies in respect of the issue at a discount of Stock under that Act.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Mr. MCKENNA): The total amount of Stock issued up to date, for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903, is £21,201,444 8s. 9d. The total cost of floating such Stock was £42,616 14s. 9d. The annual liability of the Ireland Development Grant under Section 38 of the Act of 1903, for the purpose of making good the deficiencies in respect of the issue of Stock at a discount is £70,290 2s. 7d.

  Robert Tyndall Estate, Kilkenny.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a number of tenants on the Robert Tyndall estate, Kilmacow, county Kilkenny, have been served with notices preliminary to eviction; will he say whether the tenants on this estate invited the intervention of the Estates Com-
  774
  missioners with a view of arranging terms of purchase; and whether, with a view to saving this district from disorder and disturbances, he will take steps to prevent evictions on this estate.
  The hon. Member had also given notice of the following Questions:
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to negotiations going on for some time back between the tenants on the Robert Tyndall estate, Kilmacow, county Kilkenny, and the landlord in respect to the purchase of their holdings; is he aware the tenants left the settlement in regard to price, etc., in the hands of the Estates Commissioners; and can he now state what reply was given by Mr. Robert Tyndall to the preferred mediation of the Estates Commissioners.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of Mr. Robert Tyndall, Kilmacow, county Kilkenny, opened negotiations with their landlord with a view of purchasing their holdings, and that the landlord insisted upon twenty-six and a half years purchase, which with bonus would make the purchase money thirty years; will he say whether the Estates Commissioners used their power to try and bring about a settlement, and, if so, with what result; and whether the Government will allow the forces at its disposal to be used on this property to carry out evictions.
  MR. BRYCE: I will answer these three Questions together. I have no information as to whether the tenants on the estate of Mr. Robert Tyndall have been served with notices preliminary to eviction. The Estates Commissioners inform me that, having become aware that differences existed between the landlord and tenants in regard to terms of purchase, they approached both parties and offered their services as conciliators in pursuance of the Regulations. The tenants agreed to leave the purchase price of their holdings to the Estates Commissioners, but the landlord replied that having regard to the combination against payment of rent entered into by the tenants, he did not see that any useful purpose would be

  775
  served by the intervention of the Commissioners. The Commissioners thereupon decided that they could not do anything more in the matter of settling the dispute. The Commissioners have no information as to the terms demanded by the landlord, beyond the statement of the tenants that he asked twenty-six and a third years purchase. It is not competent to the executive Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown for the protection of the Sheriff when engaged in the execution of the King's Writ.

  Irish Land Sales.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish to the House a Return setting out the names of the landlords in Kilkenny and Waterford, who, having been approached by the Estates Commissioners in the interests of the peace and order of the country to sell their agricultural holdings in the interests of the tenants, declined to do so; and whether he will take a note of the names of these gentlemen, to be considered whenever application is made for the forces of the Crown to carry out civil Bill or other decrees.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in no case in which they have offered to intervene in the counties mentioned has the owner refused to sell. In one case the owner intimated that he could not see his way to accept the terms offered by the tenants. In another case, the landlord's agent replied that there was now no dispute, but there had been some doubt as to the ownership of the estate owing to the death of the former owner. In a third case, the Commissioners were asked to intervene, but the estate was in the High Court of Justice, and the estate therefore did not fall within the scope of the regulations as to conciliation. In reply to the concluding inquiry of the Question, I would refer to the Answer which I have now given to the Questions of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny.

  Audit of the Dublin Corporation Accounts.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which my right hon. friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin has given him
  776
  private notice—whether having regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of the King, Drury v. the Corporation, the Local Government Board will take immediate steps to have the accounts of the corporation audited by Mr. James King the auditor of the North Dublin Union.
  MR. BRYCE: The decision of the Court of Appeal referred to was given yesterday, and this morning Mr. King was directed by the Local Government Board to audit the accounts of the corporation.
  SIR E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, was the auditor selected by the Local Government Board or the corporation?
  MR. BRYCE: By neither I believe. He is the person whom the Statute indicated; the corporation had nothing to do with the matter.
  SIR E. CARSON: What I meant to ask was this. I know the auditor was appointed by the Statute; but Mr. King's name is not in the Statute, and I ask who selected him.
  MR. BRYCE: I understand. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes I will have inquiries made. My impression is that he is the person indicated by the Statute as the person to audit the accounts. Certainly the corporation have not come into the matter at all; the appointment is. made by the Statute.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether the Statute does not provide that audit should be made by the auditor of the accounts of the North Dublin Union, and whether Mr. King is not that person?
  MR. BRYCE: That is my impression.

  Scottish Licensing Laws.
  MR. FINDLAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his promise to introduce temperance legislation next session applies to Scotland.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The measure of licensing reform contemplated for England next session will

  777
  not apply to Scotland. I doubt whether, with our other legislative engagements for Scotland it will be possible to find time for a Scottish Licensing Bill. We are, of course, well aware not only of the importance of the subject, but of the interest felt in it in Scotland by the Scottish people.

LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)in asking leave to introduce a Bill to remove doubts as to the manner in which the powers and duties of justices acting in and for a borough may be exorcised under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1904, said:—I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which has for its object the removal of an ambiguity which has arisen in the construction of the Licensing Act. 1904. The House will remember that this measure furnished a method of reducing the number of licensed houses and compensating their owners. Perhaps I may remind the House of the machinery which that statute provided. The justices were authorised to select from among their own number a committee, who were empowered to report houses which they thought were superfluous and ought to be suppressed. That report was to be considered by the body of justices of whom the committee formed a part. In indicating the justices as a body the statute uses the expression "the whole body of justices," and I should have thought it reasonably clear that the form of that phrase was due to a desire to distinguish between the whole body of justices and the part of that body which had been set aside for discharging the functions of a committee But a different view of the meaning of that phrase has been taken by a Court of the King's Bench Division, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, and they have attributed to the phrase "the whole body of justices," a meaning which will primarily include every justice upon the commission of the peace for the borough. And as that construction would load to the patent absurdity that to obtain a lawful order it would be essential that every justice, although infirm or ill or beyond the seas, should attend, it was necessary that some modification of the construction of that
778
phrase in its severity should be arrived at. It has therefore been held that "the whole body of justices" means a majority of one at least of the justices on the commission. Why a majority of one should be tantamount to the whole body rather than a majority of three-fourths, or perhaps a majority with which we are still more familiar, four-fifths, is not explained by the Court which pronounced this judgment. The case was not argued, and it did not apparently occur to the Court that probably Parliament meant by the expression "the whole body of justices" something entirely different. I do not think there is any doubt in the House itself that what was meant was the justices as a body. And the justices as a body have acted from the earliest periods of our licensing law through a majority of these present, after all | had been cited. What would be the consequences of this decision one does not need an active imagination to foresee. In the first place, the Act of 1904 is to a large extent made a dead letter. I do not suppose that in a single borough in England the justices have acted in the way held to be alone legal in the administration of that Act. As a consequence, the funds which they have collected have not been lawfully collected, the licences which they have suppressed have not been lawfully suppressed, and the compensation which they have awarded has not been lawfully awarded. But possibly the results are still more grave, for not merely is the administration of the Act of 1904 involved, but the administration of the whole of our licensing law from 1828 up to the present time is thrown into confusion. The Act of 1904 in creating a licensing committee which is to act within the limits of the borough clearly comtemplates, in fact, uses the phrase, that the whole body of justices are to take part in the constitution of the Committee. I do not suppose that in any borough in England the whole body of justices, in the sense in which the Court has used that expression, have taken part in constituting, in the terms of the section, the licensing committee to whom the administration of the various Licensing Acts is, by terms, entrusted. The result, therefore, probably is that, certainly since 1904, the suppression of licences, the renewal of licences, the whole administration of the law is penetrated

779
by an invalidity the full operation of which it is exceedingly difficult to gauge. It may be said that this error might easily be corrected on appeal, but the situation is too urgent, the consequences are too grave, to admit of any delay. As the result of the very grave liability which they have incurred and which they are incurring, the justices in some boroughs have refused to act any further in the administration of the licensing laws, and, inasmuch as Brewster Sessions are very shortly to take place, it is essential that the law should be authoritatively declared before the interests of the very large number of persons who are involved in this branch of our legal administration are put in further peril. I am not surprised that there is a feeling amounting to something like consternation as to the consequences in which they may be involved. In fact, this matter is so grave that it can only be regarded with equanimity by the legal profession, for whom an era of litigation is opening which only their trained nerves can regard with a cool head. There was another reason why this kind of legislation should be introduced. One cannot, having regard to the fact that the Court has pronounced this judgment, come to any other conclusion than that some ambiguity does arise owing to the language which Parliament has used, and if doubts are created with reference to the intentions of a statute, the proper mode for removing those doubts is to appeal to Parliament, who was responsible for the ambiguity, and ascertain what was its real intention in using the phraseology employed. The alternative is to hand the legal puzzle on from tribunal to tribunal, but past experience has shown that that operation seldom leads to a satisfactory result. You may have different solutions of the puzzle by each tribunal, all varying one from another, and all inconsistent with the real intentions of Parliament, and therefore I trust that the House will assist the Government in putting an end to a difficulty in the administration of one of the most important parts of our licensing law. The Bill is entitled "Removal of Doubts," but I do not think there is any doubt whatever in this House. I have had the opportunity, not merely of considering the language myself, but of conferring with those who are responsible for the use of this phraseology, and the
780
construction which I should have myself put on these words, and did put on these words before I conferred with them, does, I am satisfied, truly interpret the intention which Parliament had in framing the section to which I have referred. I need only add that we are protecting, as I think we ought to protect, rights which may have been acquired under judgments already pronounced, and subject to that protection I shall ask the House to adopt the Bill, which has the retrospective effect of declaring the law as from the date of the statute of 1904.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove doubts as to the manner in which the powers and duties of justices acting in and for a borough may be exercised under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1904."—(Sir John Walton.)
SIR E. CARSONsaid that, having had something to do with the passing of the Licensing Act of 1904, and taking on himself all the necessary responsibility of the law officer who was concerned in its framing, no one was more startled than he when he read the decision of the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the King's Bench Division. He had really come to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to put words in an Act of Parliament which might not by some tribunal receive a totally different meaning from what, he thought, every layman and every lawyer in the House in 1904 attached to them. It was not a new phrase. He supposed that during the last fifty years there had been quite a number of Acts of Parliament in which the word "justices" had been used, and it had never entered into the minds of any one, until this decision, to attibute to the word anything more than a majority of those sitting. If any one would take the trouble to look at the section in this Act of Parliament, it would be seen that it was made particularly clear, because it was put directly in contrast with the committee that was to be set up by the body of justices itself. But, the Court of King's Bench having come to the conclusion referred to by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, without, it was fair to say, any argument as to the probable view that prevailed in the House, it became

781
absolutely necessary to carry out the intention of Parliament. As a rule, he would be opposed to an amending Act under these circumstances. He did not think that either the Courts, or anybody else, ought to get the idea that they could rectify these matters immediately by Act of Parliament rather than by the appeal which was given in ordinary cases to litigants. He thought it would be a bad precedent to 1ay down that every time a Court made a decision of this kind the House of Commons was to be asked to rectify it. They ought to proceed under the full responsibility of knowing that there was another tribunal that could settle these matters. But the present case involved matters far too grave and far too urgent to allow of that appeal being made, and to continue any longer than was necessary the state of commotion that existed amongst those concerned, both in the trade and the public generally, in the reduction of licences. So far as he was concerned, and he thought he could speak for his hon. friends behind him, he would give the Attorney-General every possible assistance in passing the Bill into law.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney - General and Mr. Secretary Gladstone.

LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
"To remove doubts as to the manner in which the powers and duties of justices acting in and for a borough may be exercised under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1904," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 362.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
MR. H. H. MARKS MR. H. H. MARKS (Thanet) moved the insertion of words in Clause 2 in order to give the Act a clearer meaning.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words 'and where posted such notice shall be
782
deemed to have been given, and such claim shall be deemed to have been made at the time of posting.'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said the Amendment was unnecessary.
MR. H. H. MARKSaccepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ASHLEY*MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool) moved to insert "Provided that if an accident causing the injury and death of a workman shall happen abroad or on the high seas, such period of six months shall be extended to eighteen months, or such longer period as the Court trying the action shall doom to have been reasonably sufficient for the preparation of the claim." The hon. Member said his Amendment would have the effect of extending the time given to workmen employed abroad for sending in their claim to receive compensation under the Act. He thought he would be able to show the House that some extension of time was necessary in order to in et a practical difficulty. If the House would look at Clause 2, sub-section (1), they would see that—
"Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing injury, or, in the case of death, within six months from the time of death."
It was obvious that if the Bill stood as it did now, workmen employed abroad by a British contractor would have great difficulty in making a claim for compensation, and the same difficulty would occur with regard to seamen. He did not suppose that even Members of this House if they were serving upon merchant ships would have sufficient legal knowledge to make a claim for compensation in case of accident or would know what amount to claim. And if they would find a difficulty in founding a claim, how much greater would be the difficulty for

783
seamen who probably had not the education of hon. Members of this House. The object of the Amendment was to give the seaman time to get home and employ a solicitor to draw up a claim and to get the information as to how much he should claim. There were very many tramp steamers absent more than twelve months at a time. In the case of a vessel which went, say to Ceylon, and from Ceylon to Sydney, and from there to Rio, round the Horn and back again to this country, it would be very difficult for a seaman to make his claim. That remark also applied to workmen going abroad. At the time of the Crimean War a great many men were sent out to build the railway to Balaclava, and if this Bill had been in force then it would have been very difficult for any of those men, in case of an accident, to have made a claim before they got home. Again, supposing what was likely enough, that a British contractor obtained one of the contracts in reference to the Panama scheme and took workmen out to assist him, they would very likely be there twelve months or two years, and it would be difficult for them to make a claim. He therefore asked the Government to consider these points. The Government had so far met the case that news must come home, because in Clause 7 they said in the case of a fatal: accident the relatives should have six months in which to make the claim. He only asked that the Act should extend to the living the same benefit it extended to the dead. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words' Provided that if ah accident causing the injury or death of a workman shall happen abroad or on the high seas, such period of six months shall be extended to eighteen months, or such longer period as the Court trying the action shall deem to have been reasonably sufficient for the preparation of the claim.'"— (Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)thought most of the hon. Gentleman's points would be adequately met by an Amendment which would be presently moved by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary. In the next clause, too, ample and generous
784
provision was made for dealing with all difficulties or hardships that arose from omission to make a claim in time. A seaman had not got to claim a definite amount, but the point with regard to seamen would be better raised on Clause 7. It would be seen that a seaman need give no notice when the accident happened on board ship, and if he had omitted to make his claim and pointed out that he had been abroad and unable to do so that was eminently the class of case which the Court would treat as she wing a reasonable cause for preventing the man making his claim earlier, and he would not be debarred from making his claim then. The workman was permitted to go to trial in any event, and all technicalities were swept away.
LORD R. CECILthought that his hon. friend's point would be largely met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. When they came to that Amendment he hoped the Solicitor-General would be able to consider words making it quite clear that absence on the seas should be one of those cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)*MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke) moved an Amendment to ensure that proceedings should commence within three months after making the claim for compensation. He said the Amendment was recommended by the Departmental Committee, and it ought to be accepted because it would, while it involved no hardship on the workmen, give reasonable protection to the employer. The Statute of Limitations had no application to proceedings under the Act. In some cases great hardship might result to the employer. Under the Employers' Liability Act there was a limit of time imposed. The proceedings-must be commenced within six months in ordinary cases and twelve months in fatal cases, and he held that there should be a limitation in this Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words 'and such proceedings are commenced within three months after the making of the claim.'"—(Mr. Olavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. Undoubtedly there might be cases of hardship to the employer under the Bill as it stood, but, on the other hand, the Amendment of the hon. Member might inflict very great hardship on the individual workman who had erred through ignorance, and not through anything which could be looked on as serious neglect. He thought it was best to rely on the view that, where once a claim was made, the employer himself was able to take steps to expedite proceedings.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASthought the Home Secretary might really give further consideration to this Amendment, which he did not think would be hard upon the workman and certainly would protect the employer. If there were no limitation an employer might have an action brought against him at any time; and it might be that when the action was brought all trace of the occurrence was lost. It might also be that after a great lapse of time a medical man would find it impossible to certify as to the injury. If the workman acted in ignorance it would be undoubtedly hard, but he fancied that could be met by the next Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore he trusted further consideration would be given to this Amendment.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was quite sure the Amendment would be favourably considered if there were any kind of necessity for it. The making of the claim was itself the commencement of the proceedings, and if a workman, after making his claim, chose to lie by, it was competent to the master to take steps to hurry on the proceedings if he thought it was a bona fide claim, so that there was no occasion to put on the workman the severe penalty of losing his right of action altogether. After all, this claim for compensation was a litigation, and a litigation which never ought to be hastily entered upon without counting the cost. It would be very hard if, because a man through want of means was driven to delay an order for three months, he should lose his right of action altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'cause,' to insert the words 'and (b) the failure to make a claim within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman compared the Amendment with the clause he would have some doubt as to the draughtsmanship. The word "mistake" would appear twice in succeeding lines, and give rise to very considerable confusion. Notice was required to be given as soon as practicable, and if there was any defect in the notice it was not to be a bar to proceedings if it was found that the employer would not be prejudiced in his defence. The right hon. Gentleman pro posed to deal with the claim on a different footing. If the Amendment were adopted it would always be found that there had been a mistake. Why not boldly leave out the word "mistake" altogether? That appeared to be the only solution. Nobody wanted the employer to be prejudiced in his defence, but if the claim were made twelve or eighteen months afterwards, or even after a longer interval, all the witnesses might have disappeared, and it might be impossible for the employer to resist the claim. He would suggest the addition of the words "provided that the employer is not thereby prejudiced in his defence."
MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY moved to amend the Home Secretary's Amendment by inserting after "mistake" the words "absence abroad." He agreed that the case of seamen was very fairly covered by Clause 7, but it might be held by the Court under this clause that absence abroad was not a reasonable cause. As he was sure the Government did not wish to exclude any British workmen employed by a con-tractor abroad, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the words he now proposed.
AN HON. MEMBERsuggested the words "service abroad."
MR. ASHLEYsaid he would accept the suggestion.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr (Tydvil)thought "employment abroad" would be better.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would accept the words "employment abroad."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To insert after the word "mistake," the words "employment abroad."—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
SIR E. CARSONthought some answer was required to the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Ayrshire. He was not prepared to argue whether this limitation ought to be put in or not; but if they did put in this provision they would practically wipe out the limitation altogether. Cases might arise in which the employer would be prejudiced. He would therefore move, for the purpose of raising the question, to add to the Home Secretary's Amendment the words "provided that the employer is not, in the opinion of the Court, thereby prejudiced in his defence."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"At (the end, to add the following words, 'provided that the employer is not, in the opinion of the court, thereby prejudiced in his defence.'"—(Sir E. Carson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment, as amended."
SIR W. ROBSONpointed out that they could not always proceed with due promptitude for reasons which he had already stated, and it would be a very severe penalty where a workman had neglected to do this that he should be deprived of all right to make a claim. That would be a very heavy penalty, and it was one which they did not wish to impose. The better plan was to confine this provision to extreme cases. If a man
788
did not know that he had to put in his claim within six months, or if he was employed abroad and could not get back to the United Kingdom, he thought it was only fair that he should be at liberty to put those facts before the Court, and the Court should have power to excuse him. They did not want to bar every man who had made a mistake, but at the same time they ought to insist that everybody should proceed with reasonable promptitude. As the clause stood originally it was applicable to both notice and claim. They had now made two sub-sections, one applicable to notice and the other to claim, and it was merely a drafting alteration. There was a provision that a defect or inaccuracy in the notice should not be a bar to the proceedings if an amended notice was then and there given. That was applicable to notice only and not to claims. Before a claim was made notice had to be given of the injury, and it would be very rare indeed that a man would take the trouble to give notice unless he intended to follow it up by a claim. Therefore both parties would take care to preserve the evidence, and a claim could not be sprung upon an employer without due notice. It would be rather hard to bar a workman from all further right to claim compensation, no matter how serious his accident, by reason of in-advertence, or poverty, or for any mistake.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)said he was perfectly confident that if the whole provision was not to be a dead letter it was necessary that the Amendment of his right hon. friend should be inserted. At present the workman must either make a claim or satisfy the Court that his omission to do so was occasioned by a mistake. Unless that was done the Court had no discretion at all. The expression "occasioned by a mistake" was one of the loosest and most unsatisfactory that could be used. It would be impossible to distinguish between a mistake and negligence. If a man said he was not aware of the provisions of the Act, and did not know that he had to give notice, the Court would have no option but to allow the proceedings to go on. As far as the principle of this provision was concerned

789
they were all agreed. The principle was that they ought to fix a period and give the Court the widest and the most real discretion, having regard to two things, prejudice to the man who had to pay on the one hand, and hardship or reasonable excuse of the workman on the other. He could not understand upon what grounds the Government felt any difficulty in accepting the Amendment, for they had already put into their Bill these very words when dealing with the discretion of the Court in regard to notice.
MR. WALLACEpointed out that, even if the Court was convinced that owing to absence abroad or for any other reasonable cause relief ought to be granted, if the slightest prejudice was shown to the employer the Court would be debarred from granting relief.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he was satisfied if a discretion was given, and he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. CORYsaid the word "mistake" opened the door very widely, and he thought if that words "by mistake or other" were left out it would strengthen the clause.
SIR CHARLES SCHWANNsaid that he knew from experience in his own constituency that often six months elapsed without a sufferer by an accident having the slightest notion that he would have to make any application. In spite of the fact that the objects of this Bill had been explained in many trade journals and various reports, he had received within the last fortnight applications from working men who did not understand whether their case came properly under the Act or not. He had had considerable experience upon this subject, and ever since the last Act was passed he had been freely consulted, probably because he did not charge a fee. He knew perfectly well the facts of the case, and he had no hesitation in saying from his own experience that frequently six months elapsed before an injured person became conscious that he ought to have made a claim. Many employers frequently paid
790
an injured workman full or half wages, and it often happened that the workman was not told about making his claim until his sick pay was stopped. He supported this proposal because; he considered it was necessary.
MR. FENWICKfelt that some such words as the Home Secretary had proposed were absolutely necessary in order to prevent a repetition of cases of extreme hardship which had occurred under existing Acts. He knew of a woman who lost a great part of her right hand, and her employers provided her weekly with the greater part of the wages she had formerly been receiving. She was repeatedly urged to bring her claim for compensation, but she thought the generosity of the employers would continue. At the end of six months, however, their generosity dried up, and when she made her claim she was told that it was too late. That was not likely to happen to members of big trade unions. They were able to protect themselves, and it was in the unorganised trades that the hardship occurred. It the late Government had accepted their suggestion on this point when the Act of 1897 was being passed many hardships and difficulties would have been avoided.
MR. WOLFFsaid such cases as the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division had referred to had often occurred. They occurred oftener some years ago than lately, because the knowledge that under the Act anyone who met with an accident was entitled to compensation had become infinitely more general than it was before. If this Bill passed with the clause proposed by the Home Secretary there would be no possibility of anybody not getting compensation owing to inadvertence. He quite approved of the Amendment, but he thought it went too far. It put in the words "by mistake," and left no option to the Court whatever. It compelled the Court to accept any mistake whatever as an excuse for commencing an action months or years after the accident. He thought if the section was simply confined to the words "some reasonable cause," and it was left to the discretion of the Court to say

791
whether the cause was reasonable or not, the requirements of the case would he met. If the mistake or inadvertence was reasonable the Court would allow it, and the workman would not be placed at a disadvantage; but if the words "by mistake" were to be accepted no employer would be sure that an action might not be brought against him long after the evidence which would have enabled him to prove that he was not to blame had disappeared. He was quite anxious to be fair to working men, but he thought the position of the employers ought also to be considered.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that, while they all appreciated the generous speech of the hon. Member for East Belfast, he could not agree with the suggestion he had made. All who had had experience of the operation of the Compensation Acts knew that there were occasions when mistakes would operate against workmen getting justice under these statutes. He would give the House the benefit of a little experience he had had this week. In a case in which he was engaged the time for taking action under one of these Acts expired on a Friday. The papers which it was necessary to lodge were sent a day or two before the expiry of the time for giving notice, but the registrar of the county court discovered that there was one paper short. The solicitor who was conducting the case stated that all the papers required by the rules of the county court had been put in the envelope. At all events, the registrar sent back the papers to the solicitor and demanded to have the proper number of papers sent to him. Sunday intervened. The papers, which were returned by the next post, arrived on Monday—a day beyond that on which they should have been sent. That was a reasonable cause of delay. There had been a mistake on the part either of the solicitor or of the reigstrar of the county court. When they appeared in Court in the course of the week this technical objection was taken, and the county court Judge, a reasonable and humane man, asked the counsel on the other side whether he really meant to press that objection. The counsel replied
792
that he had instructions to do so. Those who instructed him were a well-known insurance company. With very great regret and anger the county court Judge said, that while he thought it was a most unreasonable objection to take, he was obliged to decide against his client the plaintiff. He could relate many experiences similar to that stated by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division. He therefore hoped that the words would be retained.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMbelieved that if those who were opposing such Amendments as this had a little more experience of these matters their opposition would be removed. One ounce of experience was worth a ton of theory. He knew a case where an employer in South Wales paid a workman £1 per week for six months, and then when the time for giving notice had expired the £1 a week stopped. When an action was brought into Court the plaintiff was non-suited. He knew another case where a young man six months ago neglected to give notice. An official of the company in whose employment he had been kindly informed him a week or two after the accident that it was necessary to give notice. Six weeks ago the manager of the company was surprised to learn that the young man had not received his compensation. The money had not been paid, not because the employers were unwilling to give it, but because the case was in the hands of an insurance company. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to his proposal.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid this discussion had shown that some such words as those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University were necessary. There had been hard cases under the present law, but he believed that if the Amendment of his right hon. friend were accepted those cases which they deplored would be stopped in future. Notwithstanding what the Solicitor-General had said as to its being perfectly easy for an employer to keep under his hand a note of the evidence that might be necessary in the case of a claim being made at a remote date, he thought the Government

793
might accept the words proposed by his Tight hon. friend.
MR. REESsaid it was very desirable that this Amendment should be carried in the terms in which the Home Secretary introduced it, and the interval allowed was none too long under the circumstances. In his own constituency men injured in South Wales might after a period of convalescence be brought to their homes in Newtown, Machynlleth, or Llanidloes,
and that would occasion further lapse of time quite excusable in the circumstances, before the claim was made. It was particularly desirable that this provision should have a sufficiently wide and elastic significance, and he hoped it would be passed in the form in which his right hon. friend had moved it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes, 296. (Division List No. 457.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fardell, Sir T. George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Fletcher, J. S.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Balcarres, Lord

Furness, Sir Christopher

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Alfred

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Land.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Banner, John S. Harmood

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Harrison-Breadley, Col. H. B.

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bull, Sir William James

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)

Thornton, Percy M.

Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Liddell, Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dubin, S.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birminghm)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Nield, Herbert

Alexander Acland-Hood

Doughty, Sir George

Parkes, Ebenezer

and Viscount Valentia.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.)

Percy, Earl

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cairns, Thomas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Alden, Percy

Boland, John

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richd. Knight

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brace, William

Chance, Frederick William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brigg, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset)

Bright, J. A.

Clough, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clynes, J. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Brodie, H. C.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brooke, Stopford

Cogan, Denis J.

Beale, W. P.

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Beauchamp, E.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Cooper, G. J.

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Bell, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland-

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Benn, W. (T'w'vHamlets, S Geo.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Bennett, E. N.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cox, Harold

Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Rom'rd)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crean, Eugene

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Cremer, William Randal

Billson, Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Crombie, John William

Crooks, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Paul, Herbert

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Paulton, James Mellor

Dalziel, James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Pearce, Robert. (Staffs, Leek)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kincaid-Smith. Captain

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Delany, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dickinson, WH. (St. Pancras, N.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lambert, George

Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)

Dillon, John

Lamont, Norman

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rainy, A. Rolland

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lupton, Arnold

Rees, J. D.

Elibank, Master of

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rendall, Athelstan

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lynch, H. B.

Renton, Major Leslie

Erskine, David C.

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhm'ptn)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts Charles H. (Lincoln)

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Farrell, James Patrick

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Robertson. Sir G. Scott (Bradfd)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Kean, John

Robinson, S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Killop, W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Maddison, Frederick

Runciman, Walter

Gill, A. H.

Mallet, Charles E.

Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

Ginnell, L.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Glover, Thomas

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Gooch, George Peabody

Meagher, Michael

Sears, L. E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Seaverns, J. H.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seddon, J.

Gulland, John W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mond, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, E. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Halpin, J.

Mooney, J. J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Snowden, P.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morrell, Philip

Soares, Ernest J.

Harwood, George

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murphy, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, James

Sullivan, Donal

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Myer, Horatio

Summerbell, T.

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholls, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nolan, Joseph

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomasson, Franklin

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Tillett, Louis John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md)

Toulmin, George

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, Alexander

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow) W.

Vivian, Henry

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Grady, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Hudson, Walter

O'Hare, Patrick

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamt'n)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wardle, George J.

Jardine, S. J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Jenkins, J.

Partington, Oswald

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

796

797

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Whit taker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Winfrey, R.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wodehouse, Lord

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, P. W, (St. Pancras, S.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

Question, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. WARDsaid that before the Home Secretary's Amendment was agreed to, he wished to ask whether the phrase "term of employment abroad" did not limit the clause considerably? He would prefer the words "service or absence abroad," because he understood that in the case of apprentices they were held not to be in employment abroad, but only on service.
SIR W. ROBSONdid not think the words of the Amendment had any substantially limiting effect, or that any improvement would be effected by the words suggested by the hon. Member. The controlling words were "or other reasonable cause."
MR. H. H. MARKS MR. H. H. MARKS moved in Clause 3, to insert after "scheme" the words "whether now existing or hereafter to be framed." As the Bill stood it was not clear whether the Act referred to existing insurance schemes or also to others which might be formed, and therefore he wished to make the point clear.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 29, after the word 'scheme' to insert the words 'whether now existing or hereafter to be framed.'"—(My. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the point put by the hon. Member was one which deserved and required attention, but he would bring to his notice an Amendment which he had down to Clause 15 which he thought really covered it. The Amendment which he himself had put down provided that—
"Every scheme under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in force at the commencement of this Act, shall, if re-certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, have effect as if
798
it were a scheme under this Act. The Registrar shall re-certify any such scheme if it is proved to his satisfaction that the scheme conforms, or has been so modified as to conform, with the provisions of this Act as to schemes. If any such scheme is not so re-certified, the certificate thereof shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be revoked."
He thought that that proposal covered the point the hon. Gentleman had raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL Mr. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor) moved to insert after "that" the words "except in the case of seamen." He said the Amendment was not directed towards the exclusion of seamen from the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He was always anxious that seamen should be as fully safeguarded as all the other classes concerned, but the Amendment was directed towards another object. Clause 3 provided that a scheme of contracting out of the Act might be adopted if the Registrar of Friendly Societies was satisfied that that scheme provided scales of compensation not less favourable to the workmen and their dependents than the corresponding scales of the Act, and was satisfied that the majority, ascertained by ballot, of the workmen were in favour of such scheme. The point of his Amendment was that it was quite impossible, as he submitted, to discover by ballot the decision of seamen. The seamen employed by a particular employer might be and probably were in different ports, on different ships, and far away, perhaps for a long period. It was therefore quite impossible to get a ballot of all the men in an employ at a given moment, and they ought to be excepted from such a provision. It was, however, desirable to do something for seamen in order that they might get the full benefits of this Act. He noticed lower on the Order Paper there was an effort made in this direction by the hon. Member for Gloucester, who wished to insert a sub-section in which he suggested that the Registrar of Friendly

799
Societies might, if required by the employer, grant a provisional certificate for a scheme after ascertaining the views of the workmen, if he could further certify that the scheme satisfied all the provisions of the Act. He supposed it would be necessary to insert in the hon. Member's Amendment words providing that the Registrar should, "as far as possible," ascertain the views of the workmen; but in that case if the Registrar was satisfied it might be possible to give the seamen the advantages which other workmen would obtain under the Act. He did not intend to raise by the Amendment the whole machinery of the Act in respect of seamen, or whether it was preferable to insert similar clauses in the Merchant Shipping Act. That could be raised on Clause 7.
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid he seconded the Amendment, not because it would take seamen, sailors and firemen out of the Clause, but because it would bring them in by putting them under some contracting arrangement. The clause itself was a contracting out one, and he was not greatly in favour of contracting out, which ought to be limited and safeguarded. As the clause stood at present, however, shipowners and sailors were absolutely excluded by this difficulty in regard to the imposition of the ballot, and therefore some Amendment was absolutely necessary for. the effective application of the clause. A sub-clause standing in his name had already been referred to, in which the safeguards were quite as strong as those which were applied to all other industries under Clause 3, which provided a practicable alternative for seamen. If they were to have a contracting out clause he could not see why seamen should be excluded from it. On the whole he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aston Manor and his own sub-clause it would protect the shipping industry and preserve all the safeguards which at present existed in the case of other industries. He would be content if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to consider the case of the shipping people, because it was physically impossible to provide for a
800
ballot. It might be provided that the ballot should be taken by degrees, but by the time the ballot was taken the whole personnel of the service might be changed and the men employed would be different. If his sub-clause were adopted or some equivalent it would still be incumbent upon the Registrar of Friendly Societies to discover what the opinion of a sufficient number of men was.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 36, after 'that' insert 'except in the case of seamen.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEquite agreed that the points raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment deserved consideration, and that there were difficulties as regarded seamen, but he thought the argument of his hon. friend who had just spoken was really one for excluding seamen altogether from the operation of the clause. Although the hon. Members had said it was a physical impossibility to ascertain the wishes of the majority of seamen by any figures, he had great doubt about it. He did not think it was by any means impossible to do so. The Registrar under this clause could make as many rules as he thought fit to carry it out. Why should not he, by extending the time to six months or a year, give himself an opportunity of ascertaining that a sufficient number of men employed by a particular company were in favour of a scheme? His hon. friend had said that after six months there might have been a good many resignations and changes, but there again the Registrar could come in and make regulations, and it did not follow that because a number of men had resigned that official could not discover for the purpose of the clause whether or not the majority were in favour of a scheme. He thought the clause must stand as it was, or that the sailors must go out altogether, and he was not prepared to keep them out. He could assure the hon. Member that the Chief Registrar would very carefully consider the matter and meet the views which had

801
been expressed that evening. It was quite clear that they could not accept the Amendment.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONcould hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman had rightly appreciated the force of the contention made in support of the Amendment. Let him give the House a practical illustration. For a good number of years he had been concerned in the shipping trade between two foreign ports, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reports and figures as to the changes of the crew would really surprise him. It was impossible to get, with any thing approaching accuracy, the opinion of the seamen even at any one particular port. There was one possible solution. They might cut down the decision to that of a majority on particular ships, but he suggested that a solution might be found in the adoption of a standard or general scheme possibly with the approval of the Board of Trade and the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Then it would be perfectly easy to ascertain the opinion of the men at the time they joined the ship and received their advance notes. He put that, forward as a practical point, because he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no matter what view the Registrar took it would be absolutely impossible to work the provisions of the section as they stood.
MR. CAIRNS (Newcastle-on-Tyne)said, as one who had advocated the inclusion of seamen in the Workmen's Compensation Act from the beginning, he was naturally anxious to see them secure the full benefits under the Bill. He was not prepared to support the Amendment, but at the same time he did not feel altogether comfortable as to the phraseology used in the Bill. It laid down very clearly the method by which the registrar was to ascertain the opinion of the majority of seamen. It was strictly limited, and if the registrar found a ballot impracticable, and he personally regarded a ballot amongst seamen as almost impracticable, he would not have the option of using some other method whereby he could arrive at the opinion of the majority. He thought that in the case of seamen the registrar should have at his disposal another
802
optional method. He was not prepared at the moment to suggest amending words, but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would undertake later on to frame the clause so that the Registrar might have discretionary powers. What he was most concerned about was to see that the seamen secured full benefits under the Bill.
MR. WALSHsaid he had no special claim to speak on behalf of the seamen, but he had been puzzled to find out what was the real desire for this contracting out. Under the provisions of a contracting-out scheme the employers were to be obliged to give to the workpeople as much as they would be called upon to pay under the Act, and therefore it was difficult to see the real necessity for the contracting-out schemes that had been suggested by an hon. Member on the Opposition side. He believed the Government were taking the right line in this matter, and he hoped they would stick to it.
MR. COCHRANEsaid in many instances these contracting-out schemes cost not only as much as, but more than the employers would have to pay under the Act, but one of the principal reasons why they wished for them was that they desired peace. They wished to have a settlement with their own men by which if any accident occurred both the master and man might know exactly, on the one hand, what he would have to pay, and, on the other, what he would receive, so that the money might be paid at once without going to arbitration or the Court. He thought that unless some words were inserted, seamen would be excluded from the opportunity of contracting out. The clause ought to be so drawn that no obstacle was placed in the way of friendly arrangements between the employers and the men, which were made in the interests of peace and were beneficial.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. There was no doubt that the new contracting-out clause would very materially limit contracting out, and if the employer gained no financial benefit, schemes were not likely to be very largely adopted. After all, the scope of the clause was not very wide. The provision

803
that the majority of the men should give their assent would be worthless unless some secrecy were provided for in the mode by which the assent was ascertained. He thought the ballot was probably as good as any other method. The Government were not disposed to dispense with this safeguard for seamen unless, as in the case of other employers, the assent of the majority of the men could be ascertained by some secret method. The case of seamen was quite different from that of workmen on shore. Their employment was not permanent, but was merely an engagement for a voyage, and if it were the fact that these provisions made contracting out more difficult in the case of seamen he would not regret it.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he wished to add only a single observation, and that was with, reference to a remark in more than one quarter of the House that contracting-out schemes were not likely to be numerous, having regard to the fact that they were not likely to result in any economy or gain. Undoubtedly there were some schemes in existence which were more beneficial than the compensation provisions of the Bill. He did not say that they were numerous, but if there were no advantage in the maintenance of contracting out it was a mistake to preserve such facilities at all. If, on the other hand, it was an advantage to maintain facilities for contracting out for workmen generally there was no reason why, if they could reasonably secure it, they should not obtain that advantage. There was a way of securing it which seemed to him to preserve all the advantages, if such there were, to seamen without exposing them to disadvantages which had attracted unfavourable comments in various parts of the House. It was desirable that if votes were to be taken at all they should be taken by ballot, and he would suggest that the operation of the ballot might perfectly well be limited to individual ships. If that course were adopted they would secure any possible advantage, and would negative altogether the theory that the real judgment and wishes of the men might be obscured.
SIR ROBEET ROPNERsaid he had always been in favour of sailors
804
getting compensation equally with men who worked on land, but he wished that the matter had been dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Bill, as it might then have been better discussed. As the clause now stood there was no doubt in his mind that seamen would have no chance of contracting out, for as a matter of fact there was no possibility of obtaining the views of the sailors by ballot or otherwise. He thought it unfair that seamen should have no opportunity of coming under alternative schemes, and he was sorry the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General had not seen their way to amend the clause in this direction. There was no necessity, so far as he could see, of at once coming to a decision. If the Home Secretary would say that if the Amendment were withdrawn he would fully consider the whole matter, and at a future stage bring forward a clause to meet the view of practical owners, that would be sufficient. Seamen would then be placed in exactly the same position in regard to contracting out as their fellow-workmen on shore.
Mr. C. DUNCANsincerely trusted the Home Secretary would not withdraw the words. He had failed to hear any argument yet adduced to show that it was impossible to take a ballot. It would be a very easy thing to do on a ship. He took it that the Registrar would lay down rules and that if a ballot were taken when the crew were on board it would be difficult for the crew to get away from the ballot. There was conclusive evidence that if there was a place where a ballot could be taken it was on a ship, but he contended that if there was a case to which contracting out should not apply, it was the case of men who had gone to sea.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there seemed to be some difference of opinion as to what was really meant by the word "ballot." It simply meant a secret vote. Hon. Members opposite would agree that the views of the seamen should be ascertained by a secret vote; therefore the views of the men should be ascertained by a ballot, and the only question was what form of ballot should

805
be adopted for this particular purpose. If it were possible to take a ballot on a single ship belonging to a company, as the hon. Member for Liverpool had said it was, it was equally possible to take a ballot of all the ships of the company one by one. On the understanding that had been given that the Registrar would frame rules to meet any difficulty he hoped the House would allow this section to be taken. They did not desire to lay down any cast-iron rules, and every effort would be made to insure that the provision should be a real provision and properly applicable to seamen as well as workmen on shore.
MR. CARLILEsaid they had the opinion of experts on this subject to the effect that the ballot could not be taken. The Opposition had no objection to the seamen expressing their opinion upon the subject, but, inasmuch as the provisions of schemes under the contracting-out clause must be more favourable to the interests of the seamen than the provisions of the Bill, it was doubtful whether the seamen would derive any special benefit from a ballot. It was extremely difficult to see why the right hon. Gentleman should insist on retaining the ballot in his clause. Those who had a practical knowledge of shipping said that the thing was impracticable. It was suggested by the Solicitor-General that masters when engaging men would insist upon their acceptance of the master's own suggestions as one of the conditions of employment. He thought that even if a master did insist upon seamen accepting better terms than were provided by the Act the Unionist Party, at any rate, who had the interest of the workmen at heart, and who passed the first Act for the protection of the vital interests of the working people of this country, should not stand in their way. The Solicitor-General had asked why the masters preferred to deal with their own men. He was not going to elaborate the reasons why masters preferred to deal directly with their workmen, but one reason was that they did not like to be dictated to by trade union officials. In that respect they were unlike the present Government, who were accustomed to it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
MR. CARLILEsaid there were many owners of ships, who would be glad to deal directly with the men, and in many cases they would give them far better terms than they would get through the officials of trade unions or from any Bill which a Radical Government might devise. Very often employers would do their own initiative things which they of would decline to do at the bidding of a hard and fast Act of Parliament. For these reasons he supported the Amendment, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see his way to redraft the clause so that seamen would have every facility given to them for contracting out.
MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid they all agreed that the opinion of the seamen should be taken. In dealing with a large number of seamen it was almost impossible to ascertain what at any given time was the prevailing opinion amongst them unless the opinion was taken simultaneously. It followed that the ballot would have to be taken on board ship. He understood that the Under Secretary to the Home Office had stated that when the regulations for which provision was made in subsection (8) were published, the Home Office would see that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies made the provision they had been contending for. Under those circumstances he should advise his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. EVELYN CECILasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 38, to leave out the words 'until the certificate is revoked,' and insert the words 'whilst the certificate is in force.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WALSH MR. WALSH moved an Amendment providing that where the workpeople paid to any scheme the Registrar should satisfy himself that they

807
received an equivalent benefit in addition to those conferred upon them under the Act. In many of the contracting-out schemes in existence payment was made by the workpeople or deductions were j made from their wages as a condition of the scheme. It seemed to him that in order that the workers should derive the benefit of their contributions they ought to receive something in addition to the benefits under the Act. If a scheme was brought into force under the provisions of this section it would only be necessary for the Registrar to satisfy himself that the scheme gave to the workpeople conditions not less favourable than those under the Act. but if allowance was made for the contributions the total benefits must be in excess of the provisions of the Act. In his remarks the Solicitor-General seemed to meet the point he desired in his Amendment, and if that was the case he would not press it. In Lancashire they had been actively engaged in this business for many years. They had consulted their legal advisers who were of opinion that the wording of the section would only place upon the Register the obligation of finding out whether the provisions of the scheme gave benefits equivalent to the provisions of the Act and not necessarily a further benefit equivalent to the contributions paid. He begged to move.
MR. GLOVERseconded. He said it had been stated that there were many schemes more beneficial than the Act itself, but he had never seen any of them. With regard to the schemes of the past and the schemes in operation under the Act he wished to point out that they were not as favourable to workmen as they ought to be. He would like to have an undertaking that under the new Bill the Registrar would be bound to give to a workman, if the scheme was enforced, the benefits which the Act provided for. One scheme with which he had had to deal was forced upon the workmen without their consent, and it was clearly proved to the Registrar that the benefits which the men were receiving were not equal to those the Act would give them. In that case, in 1898 721 of the workmen were for the scheme and 1,719 against it, and again in 1901, when another ballot
808
was taken, there were for the scheme 267 and 1,593 against it, but in spite of that majority against it the Registrar sanctioned the scheme. After five years experience the men were not getting under the scheme the benefits they ought to be receiving, for they were only paid 12s. a week in case of accident, although they had to pay a contribution of 3d. a week out of their earnings.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert the words, 'Where payments by the workpeople are made to any such scheme the Registrar shall, before issuing his certificate, satisfy himself that an equivalent benefit is granted to the workpeople there for, in addition to the benefits conferred upon them under this Act.'"—(Mr. Walsh.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was glad the hon. Member had moved this Amendment because it gave him an opportunity of explaining the new clause. The Government had made some very material differences between the completing out clause in the new Bill and that in the old Act. First of all, there were two conditions with regard to compensation which must be fulfilled before a certificate could be issued. There was in the old Act simply one. The old Act stipulated that the Registrar should satisfy himself that a scheme was not less favourable than the Act. That was the only condition from the financial point of view which the Registrar had to take into consideration. Under the old Act there might be a lower scale of compensation and yet the Registrar might consider that that scheme was on the whole as good because of the other benefits offered by the scheme. Under this Bill the Registrar must satisfy himself not only that the scale was not less favourable, which was the first condition, but also that, even with the contributions that might be called for from the workmen, the provisions of the scheme were as good as those provided by the Act. He asked the House to see what that meant. Supposing a workman made a contribution and was offered a scale equal to that laid down by the Act he was not getting benefit equal to that provided by the Act, because he was

809
paying for it. Therefore the Registrar could not certify that scheme, as it was not on the whole as favourable to the workmen. It would work. out in this way, that any benefit which was paid for by the workmen must be at least equal to the contribution by the employee. Under the clause as it stood the Registrar would not be entitled to certify any scheme which gave the workmen less than he would get if there was no scheme; he must not be in a worse position under a scheme than under the Act. The object aimed at by the Amendment was entirely met by the words in the clause. He thought the mode which the Government had adopted was better than an express provision saying that the workmen's contributions were to be the measure of some corresponding benefit which was not defined. First of all, the Registrar had to see that the scheme was equal to what was provided by the Act, and thon he had to see that the benefit given by the scale was not lost by any scheme.
MR. BRACEsaid the matter before the House was one of the first importance. The reason that the Amendment had been moved at all was because of the unhappy experience of the operation of contracting out schemes. He had carefully read the clause in the Bill, but it would be the essence of foolishness for him to express an opinion where the Solicitor-General had given his. He was, however, bound to say that to an ordinary man it was not clear in the clause as at present drafted that under a contracting-out scheme the workman was to be given the full benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act plus the additional benefit for the payments he made. His experience of the Registrar had not been a happy one; he had absolutely no confidence in him so far as his discretion and judgment were concerned.
SIR W. ROBSONpointed out that the Amendment only directed the Registrar to do that which under the clause as now drafted he must do.
MR. BRACEsaid that his experience of the attitude of the Registrar towards workmen emphasised the necessity of having words inserted in the Bill which would leave that official no room to make mis-
810
takes. Registrars had made mistakes— very terrible mistakes so far as workmen were concerned—which had cost them piles of money. He was afraid that it would not be in order at that stage, but he could a tale unfold which would encourage the House to agree that the Registrar was not quite the person to be given full discretion on the subject. It was because he thought his friends were afraid to take any chance upon this vital and important matter that he asked the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment, so that there would be no doubt that workmen should have full benefit of the compensation under the Act, and that if they paid any additional sum they should have the benefit of that also.
MR. F. E. SMITHthought the Solicitor-General was wrong in the opinion he had expressed. The point was not absolutely clear, and it was one with respect to which it would be easy to find plausible arguments in a Court of law in opposition to the view of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid great stress upon the difference between the contracting-out clause in the old Act and the clause in this Bill. He ventured to doubt whether a careful study of the words in the clause now before the House supported the contention of the Solicitor-General. He submitted that if the grievance which was felt by the Labour Members survived the contracting-out clause in the last Act it would survive the contracting-out clause in the present Bill. He asked whether the Government could not accept the words of the Amendment or similar words in order to secure the object which seemed to be desired by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
MR. GLADSTONEundertook that in the other House the clause should be amended to provide in clear terms that there should be equivalent benefit to every workman for his contribution.
MR. WALSHsaid that in view of the statement made by the Home Secretary he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. WARD MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent) moved an Amendment on subsection (3) of Clause 3 to provide that no scheme should be certified by the Registrar "which involves compulsory deductions from wages." In dealing with wages questions the House had for a considerable time decided that it was wrong in principle to allow employers to make deductions for any purpose whatever from the wages which workmen had earned. That was the principle underlying the Truck Acts, and regulations of a similar description had insisted upon the principle. He believed this was the only safe way of dealing with the question of contracting out, and that it would solve the problem which the House had just been discussing. There were employers who employed an enormous number of casual men with whom it was impossible to enter into a contracting-out scheme. It seemed most unfair that in that casual employment, a man who asked for work should be compelled to submit for two or three weeks, or even four or five months, to a certain portion of his wages being deducted, from which deduction he would derive no benefit whatever. Why should he be compelled to sign an agreement to allow such deductions from his wages? He must press this Amendment because he entirely disagreed with the principle of workmen being compelled to permit such deductions. If the workmen as a whole agreed to the deduction, that was a different matter; but if it was only one or two or a few men taken on for casual employment, they ought to get the benefit of the Truck Acts. He j begged to propose his Amendment.
MR. WARDLEseconded the Amendment, because in connection with railway companies there were now so many schemes for which deductions from wages were made, and he thought they ought not to add any further schemes lest they should make the burden on the workmen too heavy for them to bear. So far as he read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke, its effect would be that it should not be made a condition of employment that the workman should join any such scheme.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—.
"In page 4, line 10, after the word 'hiring' to insert the words 'or which involves
812
compulsory deductions from wages.'"—(Mr. J. Ward.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not think there was much difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Government on this point. His contention was that there could not be compulsory deductions from wages under the schemes proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member had overlooked sub-section (3) which said that—
"No scheme shall be certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join that scheme as a condition of their employment or which does not contain provisions enabling a workmen to withdraw from the scheme."
How could a deduction from a workman's wages be enforced when he could withdraw from any scheme at any moment? Not only that, but the whole conception of the clause was to suggest agreement between employer and employee. It was really very difficult under these circumstances to see how they were giving any encouragment to making compulsory deductions from wages. No doubt illegal deductions might be made in spite of the Truck Acts. Assuming, however, that his hon. friend's contention was accurate, the proposed Government Amendment in the Bill would cover his point. While he sympathised with the object of his hon. friend in moving the Amendment, he could assure him that there was no ground for holding that there could be compulsory deduction under this clause.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that he and his friends held very strong opinions against giving any employer power to contract out of the benefits given by the law. He had always admitted that the late Government had had equally good intentions in regard to this matter as the present Government. They had told the House that something would have to be done in order to ascertain the opinion of the workmen, but he was sorry to say nothing had in fact been done. His and his friends' experience of the contracting-out scheme had been most bitter. The injustice workmen

813
had suffered had been more severe than hon. Members would believe. Under a contracting-out scheme where workmen had been paying their threepence a week, they had received less in compensation than men who paid nothing. If a man went to a colliery to ask for employment, and the employer told him that it was not allowable under the Act that it should be made a condition of employment that he should contract out, that would be honourable. But the man would perhaps want employment very badly; he had a family, and their needs were pressing; and when he went to the employer the latter might agree to employ him, but a book would then be placed before him with a contracting-out scheme, and he would have the option whether to sign or not. If he had independence enough to say that he would not sign, then within three days he would be told that his services were no longer needed. Such things had actually happened, and that was the reason he and his friends were insisting upon some plain language being placed in the Bill so that a man should not be robbed of his rights if he did for the sake of employment agree to a scheme of contracting out. They did not believe that the Government had any intention of allowing any wrong to be done, but he hoped that before the Bill passed it would be so worded as to preclude all possibility of anybody suffering in any way.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that in all the contracting-out schemes that had come under his knowledge there was not a single one which gave the same benefit to the workman as he would obtain under the Act itself. Where there were a large number of people concerned the tendency was that any scheme put forward should not cost a limited liability company more than the compensation to be given under the Act. [Opposition cries of "No."] The only county he knew where that might occur was Lancashire.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a speech which is more relevant to the clause as a whole than to the Amendment, which is of a very limited character.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he apologised for going beyond the limits of the Amendment, but he wished to point out that if this clause were carried the Home Secretary and the Government would be carrying out the contrary of what they said when in opposition—that they were opposed to contracting out altogether.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late. He ought to have moved to omit the clause altogether.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingtoke)said the Amendment was either unnecessary or it would render contracting out impossible. He was not concerned to discuss whether or not contracting out was a good thing, or whether if there was contracting out there would be compulsion. But he did say that if there should be any compulsion, it would be compulsion which was unavoidable if any contracting out was to be allowed. The employer and the workmen were free to contract with each other as to whether they would take the benefits of a scheme or of the Act. The majority of the workmen if there was a scheme would have agreed to it, and therefore would be willing to adopt it. The workmen in the minority would be in this position, and hon. Members might call it compulsion if they pleased—he would not quarrel over the term—the employer might say that he was going to discontinue his insurance and all the men who worked with him must come under the scheme. If the minority could not agree with him, he might say that he must dispense with their services. In that sense there would be compulsion. But if they were going to make it impossible to have compulsion in that sense, they would make it impossible to have contracting out at all. It would not. be possible for the Registrar-General to devise any scheme which did not involve compulsion in the sense in which hon. Members below the gangway used the word. If this Amendment were carried it would render contracting out impossible.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the. Government did not for a moment accept the views of the hon. Gentleman as to the working of these schemes, and if such a thing was likely

815
to occur under this clause it would be desirable to have words to prevent such compulsion, the likelihood of the occurrence of which was wholly contrary to the view of the Government. Under the Bill the scheme must contain a distinct provision that any workman who was under it could withdraw from it.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER: But then he would be dismissed.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if that were to occur the matter would come under sub-section (4) of the clause, which provided for certain consequences to follow if the scheme was not fairly administered, or if its provisions were violated.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER: That would not cover a case of compulsion.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it would be a case in point, because the scheme would have been administered contrary to sub-section (4) and the Registrar might, upon that being shown, unless the cause of complaint was removed, revoke the certificate. As to the contention of the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley, they were all agreed that there might be indirect pressure upon certain employees to join in a scheme, but surely the hon. Member who represented the South Wales miners should be the last to put forward such a contention as that. If in South Wales such a course was attempted to be taken, nothing could be easier than for a great and powerful organisation such as the South Wales Miners Federation to intervene and withdraw all their members from participation in the schemes. He believed there were not many non-unionists left in South Wales, and in many other parts of the country the same argument would apply.
MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne)said that they in connection with the railway service had had bitter experience in regard to compulsory deductions from wages, and the introduction of provisions which would lead to a similar state of things in arranging compensation would do irrevocable injury to many workmen.
816
Another and most important feature was to be found in the various sick and burial funds existing on our railways which were maintained by compulsory deductions from wages. These matters were inseparably connected with the question of workmen's compensation. Since the passing of the parent Act which came into force on the 1st of July, 1898, the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland had issued instructions to the effect that men entitled to the benefits of the sick and burial funds for which compulsory deductions from wages were made every week would not receive any allowance for incapacity caused by accident which occurred in the discharge of their duty, and that those entitled to workmen's compensation would receive no benefit although they paid for it. That rule had been operative until just lately, so that in addition to only half wages for incapacity the injured men had had to suffer a deduction of 10s. or 12s. a week for which they had subscribed. If the clause were allowed to pass without a clear and distinct definition of the law that these deductions were not compulsory, in the course of a year they would be exactly where they were now. They knew what had happened in the past, and could not expect anything better in the future. He therefore supported the Amendment.
SIR CHARLES DILKEunderstood the Under-Secretary to rely upon the existing law, but under that in great undertakings there could be no doubt that membership of the society was absolutely compulsory and any member not joining was turned out. Unfortunately, it had been held lawful to make deductions and he thought the arguments in favour of the principle of the Amendment were unanswerable although its wording was defective.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there were new words in this Bill. Sub-section (3) enacted that no scheme should be certified which did not contain a provision permitting any workman to withdraw from the scheme. That was a change in the existing law. Then there was a power given to the Registrar to revoke a certificate if the Act was violated. These new provisions should

817
prevent the consequences which had been suggested as being likely to occur.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he was amazed when he saw on the Paper the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. He did not think the hon. Member could have read the sub-sections which he wanted to amend. No scheme was to be certified which contained an obligation on the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of hiring, and there was a provision enabling the workmen to withdraw from a scheme if he did not like it. This Amendment, however, was directed against these societies as a whole. What did hon. Members want? They wanted that no deduction should be made from wages, and that there should be no contracting out at all.
MR. MONDsaid that while it was perfectly true that no scheme should be certified which contained an obligation upon workmen to join it as a condition of their hiring, yet there was no possible provision which could compel the employer to employ a man who would not join a scheme. He could not see why the Government should not accept the Amendment. He had attended many Grand Committees, but he had never found that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite moved useless Amendments. Their practical experience was better than the theoretical arguments of the Treasury Bench.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 458.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rendall, Athelstan

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F

Gill, A. H.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Glover, Thomas

Richardson, A.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Balcarres. Lord

Hall, Frederick

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Barnes, G.N.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rowlands, J.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bell, Richard

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Bowerman, C. W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Seddon, J.

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Shackleton, David James

Brodie, H. C.

Hodge, John

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bull, Sir William James

Hudson, Walter

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Byles, William Pollard

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Snowden, P.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Jenkins, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Summerbell, T.

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Jowett, F. W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

Kekewich, Sir George

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Take, Sir John Batty

Courthope, G. Loyd

Markham, Arthur Basil

Valentia, Viscount

Cowan, W. H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wadsworth, J.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Dalziel, James Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mond, A.

Walsh, Stephen

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Money, L. G. Chiozza

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Duncan, C. (Burrow-in-Furness

Nicholls, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

O'Grady, J.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Fenwick, Charles

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Ward and Mr. Wardle.

Findlay, Alexander

Radford, G. H.

Fletcher, J. S.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Fullerton, Hugh

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ashley, W. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E)

Armitage, R.

Astbury, John Meir

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Murphy, John

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Ginnell, L.

Murray, James

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Napier, T. B.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gulland, John W.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nuttall, Harry

Beck, A. Cecil

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bennett, E. N.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Bertram, Julius

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashfr'd)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

O'Hare, Patrick

Billson, Alfred

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Malley, William

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Boyle, Sir Edward

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Partington, Oswald

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Paul, Herbert

Brigg, John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Paulton, James Mellor

Bright, J. A.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Percy, Earl

Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J T (Cheshire)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hyde, Clarendon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Idris, T. H. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Illingworth, Percy H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jackson, R. S.

Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jardine, Sir J.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richd. Knight

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Chance, Frederick William

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Laidlaw, Robert

Rees, J. D.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Clough, William

Lamnont, Norman

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robinson, S.

Cogan, Denis J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Collins, Sir W. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinstd)

Lundon, W.

Schwann, C. Duncan. (Hyde)

Cory, Clifford John

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seaverns, J. H.

Crean, Eugene

Lynch, H. B.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crombie, John William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Crossley, William J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Silcock, Thomas Bell

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dickinson W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

M'Callum, John M.

Soares, Ernest J.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Crae, George

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dolan, Charles Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Starkey, John R.

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kean, John

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall)

M'Killop, W.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Elibank, Master of

M'Micking, Major G.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Erskine, David C.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sullivan, Donal

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Everett, R. Lacey

Massie, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meagher, Michael

Thornton, Percy M.

Farrell, James Patrick

Menzies, Walter

Tillett, Louis John

Ferens, T. R.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Tomkinson, James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Molteno, Percy Alport-

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mooney, J. J.

Ure, Alexander

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Verney, F. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morrell, Philip

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morse, L. L.

Wallace, Robert

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

820

821

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wodehouse, Lord

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamt'n

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Younger, George

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Wason, John Cathcart Orkney

Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Winfrey, R.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CLAVELL SALTER*MR. CLAVELL SALTER moved as an Amendment to delete the words providing that a scheme should not be certified "which does not contain provisions enabling a workman to withdraw from the scheme." He said the words he proposed to strike out by his Amendment formed no part of the Act of 1897 nor did they form any part of the Bill introduced by the Government. They were inserted in Grand Committee and their insertion was a mistake. He moved his Amendment on the sole ground that if these words were left in, contracting out would become practically impossible. The first essential of any scheme from an employer's point of view was that it should have a certain degree of permanency, otherwise he would not consider it at all. A certificate once given must be available for a period of at least five years. The original provision for sanctioning schemes contained a proviso that a scheme should not be sanctioned if it contained an obligation on the part of the workman to join it as a condition of his employment. That proviso could only apply to the men who were in the employ when the scheme was first started. It could not apply to the men who joined after, because with regard to those the employer could make it a condition that they should join the scheme, or otherwise he would not employ them This Bill now proposed to add these words, that no scheme should be sanctioned unless it contained an express provision to enable a workman to retire from it, though he had accepted the scheme and agreed to be bound by it, and although there was no fault to be found with it. The workman therefore might go back on the contract he had made and take advantage of the Act instead of the scheme. If that was allowed there was an end to all contracting-out. This enabling any number of workmen, as individuals, without any reason given, at any time, to with-draw from a scheme would leave the employer in a very difficult position.
822
It was a position which no employer would ever take up. Those who took the view which the Government certainly held, that on the whole the balance was in favour of contracting-out, ought in justice to support this Amendment.
MR. ASHLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words 'or which does not contain provisions enabling a workman to withdraw from the scheme '"—(Mr. Salter.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the words were of importance. They were intended to safeguard the workman with regard to all contracting-out schemes. It might be that a workman would accept a scheme when it was put to him in alluring terms, and afterwards, on examination, change his mind. These words would enable him to do so. If he did withdraw he had another safeguard in another sub-section which had to come on, by which it was provided that the Registrar might refuse to certify if he thought the scheme was being unfairly worked. Supposing a scheme contained a provision entitling a workman to withdraw and he did withdraw, losing his claim in consequence, it could not be said that the scheme was properly worked. The Government had recognised that the Bill would be of little use to the workman if he ran the risk of being driven out of its benefits. They had provided these safeguards, and were not disposed to part with any of them. He hoped, therefore, the House would stand by these words.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 5, after the word 'where,' to insert the words 'compensation is claimed from or.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
MR. F. E. SMITH MR. F. E. SMITH moved an Amendment to Clause 4 to leave out the proviso that where the contract relates to threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work and the contractor uses machinery driven by mechanical power, the contractor alone shall be liable to pay compensation in the case of injury to a workman employed by him. He said that if an employer employed a contractor in work other than agricultural, whether or not mechanical power was used, it was provided that an injured workman should sue the principal who was liable; but in a subsequent clause there was the provision that the principal should be entitled to recover from the contractor. In the case of agricultural work, however, it was provided that the only person liable was the contractor who furnished the machinery driven by mechanical power. He would like to know what were the reasons which weighed with the Government for this divergence. He conjectured that the reason was that the Government assumed that in the majority of cases the more solvent man would be the man who supplied machinery driven by mechanical power. The words he proposed to leave out did not provide an alternative remedy, but they provided that the contractor alone should be liable. If it were right that there should be a double liability in the case of contractors in towns it was equally right that there should be a double liability in the case of contractors in the country. If the reason for the Government's proposal was that they apprehended greater solvency from the contractor, that course of reasoning was not consistent with the views they had taken in identical problems when dealing with the case of towns.
MR. H. H. MARKSseconded the Amendment, and said he had given notice of a similar Amendment. The provision under discussion constituted an anomaly. How would it work out in its present form? In the case of a farmer who let out a contract, and one of the men employed disabled himself by falling over a pitchfork in going to or coming from a threshing machine, under ordinary circumstances the farmer would be liable for compensation, but if a contractor happened to be on the land with a threshing machine the liability to compensate would be on the contractor. If, however, the contractor
824
happened to be on the land without the threshing machine when an accident happened the liability would be on the farmer. The mere fact of the physical existence of the machine on the land seemed to be enough to transfer responsibility from the shoulders of the farmer to those of the contractor. This was not only an anomaly, but it was unfair.
Amendment proposed to the Bill.—
"In page 5 to leave out lines 11 to 15 inclusive."—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the first word 'he', in line 14 stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the words were taken from the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900. There must be many cases in which the contractor was more solvent than the principal. Such a case was possible in respect of the owner of agricultural machinery. It was impossible to deal with all cases; but here seemed to be a clear case where the contractor was generally a more important and solvent man than the principal, and where it was not desirable to give the workman the double remedy. He was therefore required to make his claim to his own employer, the owner of the machinery, instead of enabling him to go first to the farmer, leaving the farmer to get indemnity from the owner of the machine.
MR. J. WARDsaid when he was a very small lad he had some years experience on a farm, and during that time he naturally saw threshing machines. He might mention a particular case in which he thought this clause would greatly injure the position of the workmen. He remembered a farmer going bankrupt, and to get a living he hired a threshing machine from a well-known firm to take round the country to thresh for farmers whom he knew. For years this man took the machine round and threshed the com for various farmers, and he also hired occasionally traction engines and ploughs, paying so much per week. He employed his own men, and after paying for the hire of the machine and the wages of the workmen attending the machine he probably did not make more

825
than a few pence above the best of the workmen he employed. He could quite imagine that if such a person were the only man to whom a workman could appeal for compensation, it was very little compensation he would get under the circumstances. It often happened that a machine was brought on to a farm, and the men who undertook the operations were directly employed by the farmer. It was a rare thing for the owner of a machine either to employ labour or to do anything but let out the machine, and very often the man who took charge and paid a regular hiring was a man of straw. Would the Government make sure that injured workmen would not have to proceed against men of straw?
SIR W. ROBSON: The words are, "employed by him."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was glad the Government were not going to give way on this point, because it was far better that the contractor—in this case the owner of the machine—should be the person to find the compensation. He was far more solvent than many of the small farmers who hired the machine, and was certainly in a position to know what there was to insure, whereas the small farmer would be in ignorance on this point. This proviso would only apply to those who were directly employed by the contractor and not to ordinary labourers on the farm. Speaking as an owner and farmer himself, he should certainly think it was wise to maintain this old remnant, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he was certain if the Government valued the feeling of farmers they would be wise to stick to the clause as it stood.
MR. DUNNasked the Solicitor - General if he was quite sure as to the meaning of the words "employed by him on such work," because it seemed that the last three words limited the first three. He could bear out everything that had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke, because he had had considerable experience of the working of these machines in a large county. A large number of them were not the property of the men using or lending them, but were the property of others, often a company, and
826
therefore he asked whether it would not be possible to put after the word "uses" the words "his own," and conclude the sub-section at the words "employed by him."
LORD R. CECILsaid he saw great objections to the general principle of this clause. If anything had been shown by the arguments used it was that these exceptions to the Act had not on the whole worked well for either the employers or the workmen, and it was desirable, as far as possible, that the Act should be simple, plain and clear. The theory of the clause was that if a workman wore injured he should have a double remedy against the contractor and the principal, the reason being that under the old system it was found in a large number of cases that the real employer used to arrange that the workmen should be directly employed by contractors, who had not any means, so that the workmen were deprived of the benefits given them under the Act. That danger was particularly present in a case such as was dealt with in this proviso. It would be perfectly easy for the farmer, who wished to avoid liability under the Act, to arrange that all the men who had anything to do with machinery, or the work carried out by machines, should be technically employed by the contractor, so as to free him from liability under the Act. He was bound to support his hon. friend in his Motion. In a case where the contractor was a man of sufficient means to provide machinery of his own he would say that the remedy should be against the contractor. He could understand that, but he could not understand the reason why they should select the agricultural contractor, and him alone, for this exception. Unless some better reason was given by the Government for this exception he would be obliged to support the Amendment.
MR. COURTHOPEhoped the Government would not give way on this point. The hon. Gentlemen who had spoken during the last few minutes appeared not to be quite aware of what actually did take place in the majority of cases. These threshing machines and the men who

827
worked them went round from farm to farm, and the men did not as a rule return to their own homes for the night, as they were generally too far away. The hon. Member for Thanet had suggested that an accident might happen to the men on their way to or from their work, and that liability would fall on the farmer, but who was to tell where the employment of one farmer finished and the employment of another farmer began? The men went from farm to farm and did their threshing, and when they had finished one job they went on to the next. There was another point which might interest the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent and the Camborne Division of Cornwall. In the case of farm hands employed by a farmer being injured by threshing machines whilst engaged in assisting the contractor's employees in their work, the liability for compensation did not fall upon the contractor but upon the farmer. It was a perfectly clearly understood arrangement and a simple one. The contractor brought a certain number of workmen with him. The man who understood the machinery was responsible for them and covered his liability by insurance. It was well understood that the contract price paid by the farmer covered the premium for that insurance. There was no reason whatever for the suggestion of the noble Lord that the farmer could wriggle out of his liability by making his farm hands technically the employees of the contractor. The contractor was no fool, he covered his own men by insurance, and he was not going to accept liability by becoming for the time being the employer of farm hands who in many cases were unused to the handling of machinery, and therefore more liable to get injured. He did not think any contractor would make himself liable in such a case. Another question had been raised about a man not owning the machinery, but that was not a material question at all. He had never heard of a single case of threshing machine contractors failing to insure their men. The liability was the contractor's, but he insured his men, and what difference did it make whether he owned or only hired the machinery? He paid the premium on the insurance, but the contract price covered and included
828
that premium. He thought the Government would do well to retain the clause as it stood. He had never heard of a case of any confusion or of any hardship upon the contractor, his workmen, or the farm hands. Serious confusion would arise in many cases, and serious injury be inflicted upon farmers if the clause were deleted from the Bill.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that in his opinion both the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary were quite wrong in their contention that a small contractor who took round a threshing machine was better off than the farmer. He had had some experience of threshing machines, for he unfortunately became some years ago the owner of half a dozen of them and he was no better off for it. The owner of a machine frequently let it out to workmen to take round. He believed that was the invariable practice all round the Midland district. The men who thus hired machines might be very poor men, and they would not make careful provision to insure the men they temporarily employed, and if an accident happened they would be unable to pay compensation. A farmer, on the other hand, could insure his men against accident. The rate of an insurance company would not be more than 10s. or 12s. per £100 of wages. If a farmer deliberately refused to pay a small sum per annum to insure his men he had only himself to thank if he had to pay compensation out of his own pocket. He did not think it would be a hardship on farmers to insure. The clause as drawn did not mean that any workman employed by a contractor on travelling work, whether a farm hand or anyone else, would, by the fact that he was so employed, be the contractor's man. An ordinary farmer had not sufficient hands to work the thresher and so the contractor gathered together men in the district.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the omission of the words would cause a great deal of unmerited inconvenience. It seemed to him that in these questions of compensation what one had to consider was the maximum of security to the

829
workman coupled with the minimum of inconvenience to the person who had to pay the compensation. He would draw the attention of the House to the case of the small farmer—and there were plenty of them in the moorlands and the remote districts of the country—who practically employed no labour except that of his own family, and therefore had no call to insure workmen under the Act. For the purposes of threshing he had to hire a machine, and had practically no possibility of insuring the men employed upon that machine for the two or three days it would be used. On the other hand, the man who owned the machine knew exactly how many men he would have to employ, and had every facility for insuring them in the easiest possible manner. If the words were left out a liability would be thrown upon the small farmer which in many cases it would be practically impossible for him to meet by insurance. In that case they would not only have the maximum inconvenience to the person who had to pay the compensation, but the minimum of security to the person who was to get it.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsuggested that the use of the word "owns" instead of "provides" would offer a way out of the difficulty.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the principal object of the Government was not to protect the farmer or the contractor, but to protect the men engaged on those machines. What happened in his part of the country was that a contractor went round with, very often, not more than two men, and the farmers joined and sent two or three men apiece to aid each other in the operation of threshing. Farmers insured their men, but only for the work on their own farms, and what he feared was that the men would not be protected except, by the proposal of the Government, if they went to work on another farm.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid this extremely interesting discussion carried him back to the discussions which took place in 1897. He pointed out that this particular proviso had been in operation since the Act of 1897 was passed, and that not a single Member had brought
830
forward any case in which difficulty had arisen on account of the wording of the Act. In the proviso now under discussion they had practically adopted the same wording. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had suggested the use of the word "provides" instead of "owns." A man who hired a threshing machine was as responsible for it as if he owned it. It was quite clear that they should retain the principle that a farmer should be liable for the men on his farm, and that the threshing machine man should be liable for the men working the machine. He thought they must adhere to that principle.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that as the general sense of the House was opposed to his Amendment, he begged leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name was to make it clear that no person who was a servant of the employer should be liable to pay compensation to the workman. This sub-section was meant to meet the case of the small employer, but the hon. Member for Ince with a sharp eye had detected a danger from the omission of the words which he proposed to introduce by his Amendment. A man who was a servant of a miner employer engaged another man to act as a butty man, and the question arose whether he would not be a contractor within the meaning of the law, and therefore liable to indemnify the butty man if he were injured. It was to make the matter perfectly clear that he introduced the words of his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 17, to leave out from 'by,' to the third 'and,' in line 23, and insert any person who would have been liable to pay compensation to the workman independently of this section.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that the Amendment which he wished to propose, taken in conjunction with another Amendment to Clause 13, was meant to deal with cases of very great

831
hardship which had recently grown up under the last Workmen's Compensation Act. His real object was to reconcile conflicting legal decisions and to avoid in the future the confusion which had arisen from these conflicting judgments. In the first class of cases, a man was employed to do a particular amount of work. He went to do the work, supplying his own labour and his own tools. In the course of the operations he was injured, and the Court held that he was not a workman, but a contractor. The other class of cases was where a man was employed, not to do a specific amount of work, but to do a certain kind of work, providing his own labour and his own tools. The Court there found the man not to be a contractor, but a workman. Under the Employer's Liability Act Lord Chief Justice Coleridge held that although a man was paid in the lump, and found his own labour and tools, he was not a contractor, but a workman; but a case had been quite recently decided where an opposite judgment was given. His Amendment would make the law clear, and reconcile these conflicting judgments. He hoped the officials on the Government Bench would see that there was good reason for removing the uncertainty which prevailed in deciding these cases.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that where the workman was immediately employed by a contractor for labour as hereinafter defined, nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling the principal or any intermediate contractor to be indemnified by such contractor for labour.'"—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONthought that if his hon. and learned friend were to; succeed in getting this clause inserted he would reduce the legal profession generally to something like the state of embarrassment which he should think that many hon. Members were in at that moment as to the precise scope of the clause. His hon. and learned friend wished to exclude from
832
the indemnity what he called a "contractor for labour." He did not wish to introduce a new phrase into this Bill, and "contractor for labour" was not only a phrase unknown to the law, but it was not an expression familiar in commerce or known in trade, and he saw great difficulty in attaching to it any definite meaning. But he apprehended that what his hon. and learned friend meant was that the workman who took, under a contract, some considerable portion of work to do, and who employed workmen, little removed in industrial status from himself, on the premises of some principal, should not be liable. If. however, his hon. and learned friend's point was not met by the existing law and the decided cases it was amply met by this Bill. He would take the familiar case mentioned to-night of the butty man in mines. Butty men were men who were employed to do work in the mine, and they employed labour to do that work. They were paid in proportion to the work done, and they divided the money among the men. It had been contended that the true employer was the butty man, and the case was tried, and in the course of it the Court asked whether the principal employer really exercised any control over the butty and if he was. in a position under the Coal Mines Regulation Act or other Acts to give any kind of direction to, or place any restrctions on the butty. If he had that power they said that he and not the butty was liable. Otherwise a man might sub-let the whole of his work and not be liable for compensation for injury to workmen. That of course would not have done, and the Court said that if a principal employer had any kind of control he was the man to be proceeded against. His hon. and learned friend had mentioned another case—a very strong case, so strong that it might lead to some doubt. In that case a builder sub-let the whole of the brickwork of a building to a sub-contractor employing his own men—quite an independent man working sometimes on this job and sometime on another. He employed his own men. fixed the rate of wages, and paid them what he pleased, but when it appeared that the principal builder had a right to give orders to the contractor's workmen it was held at once that he was the person against

833
whom an injured workman should proceed; so that the "contractor for labour," was amply provided for under the decided cases and the workmen did not look to him but to the contractor. But if the "contractor for labour" was really the employer, then he thought he should be made liable, because if they were to allow no remedy against the employee's own principal it would only lead to evasion of the Act. The Government thought it desirable that each man should sue his own employer, because it enforced insurance on the part of the employer. He thought his hon. and learned friend's Amendment, although carefully conceived and considered, was not necessary, would introduce an element of doubt, and even interfere with the best prospects of the Bill. He hoped therefore he would not press it.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. BARNES MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars) moved an Amendment which provided that the fourth sub-section should read—
"This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, or in, or about premises under the control or management of the principal."
The words to be omitted provided that the section should not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under the contractor of any work which was merely ancillary or incidental to and was no part of, or process in, the trade or business carried on by the principal. He moved the Amendment because he thought that if it were carried the clause as a whole would then be left in such a way as more effectually to carry out the underlying principle of the section. The purpose, as he understood it, was to secure that the person, who was called a principal, who undertook to do any work should be liable for an accident in the doing of that work, notwithstanding that he might let parts or the whole of it to a contractor or sub-contractor, the idea being that the principal was a man of substance whereas the subcontractor might be a man of no means, and unable to pay compensation for an accident if it happened. In the original Bill there was no such section, but one was introduced at the instance of the
834
present Secretary of State for War, and at that time it had two provisions which the Bill now under discussion also had. That was to say, it limited the liability to accidents which were within the scope of the business of the principal or in and about the place of business of that principal. On the Bill going to another place the words were said to be unintelligible, and for various reasons they were whittled down until they contained only one proviso. When the Bill came back to this House the Secretary of State for War said that the words inserted "merely ancillary to" and so on were conflicting, and he did not understand what they meant. As a matter of fact those words had been the cause of more litigation and more expense arising out of the legal jugglery of those who had to interpret them than anything in the Act. For instance, it had been held that a station was not part of a railway. that an engine in the engine house of a cotton factory was no part of the business or trade of a cotton manufacturer. Then it was suggested that an iron roof was not part of a building, but that was thought to be a little bit too much, and it was held that although the iron roof was not any part of the man's business, yet it was part of the building trade as a whole and he had to pay. These words had been found very confusing, had led to a great deal of costly litigation, and were now unnecessary as the Government had introduced a new proviso and safeguard. What he wanted to know from the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary was, why this double-edged provision, which seemed to him to be altogether in the interests of the principal employers, was introduced. A man could certainly claim against his employer, but no provision had been made that the employer should have the means by which he could pay the claim made upon him. There was no provision for compulsory insurance and until there was this section would be of no use. He desired to see this section made as effective as possible, so that the workmen could reach the man who had the money to pay. It was a very slight benefit to give to a man a right to claim against a small employer when that employer had not the means to pay. He was quite convinced that if his Amendment were

835
accepted the provision would be quite sufficient. It was said that unless there was some safeguard in the interest of the employer he might be proceeded against unnecessarily and unjustly, but he would point out that in this particular instance they would still retain the words "in or about" in which case the employer would be quite safe. He begged to move.
MR. DUNCANformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 29, to leave out from the word 'apply,' to 'in,' in line 33."—(Mr. Barnes.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that though there was something to be said in favour of the words which the hon. Member by his Amendment rejected, the Government had come to the conclusion that all that was useful in the clause was covered by the principle which confined the matter to the words "undertaken by the principal" and therefore they were prepared to accept this Amendment.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the Amendment might make some difference to the interpretation of the words "undertaken by the principal." This was a matter which it would be advantageous to clear up. Would it not interfere with the case of a contractor who had undertaken to build a house for someone else?
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the omission of the words in a case of that sort would make no difference. The man who contemplated building a house, and who had handed the work over to a contractor, could not possibly be said to be the employer. The clause applied only to work undertaken by a principal, and sub-let to a contractor.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 34, to leave out the words" under the,' and to insert the words "on
836
which the principal has undertaken to execute the work or which are otherwise under his.'"
"In page 5, line 35, to leave out the words 'of the principal.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid it seemed to him that the workman should, to the extent of the liability of the insurers to the employer, have as against the insurers all the rights which were given to him by this Act as against the employer. In the case of the bankruptcy of the employer the insurer should become directly liable to the workmen. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General had read this Amendment carefully, he would see that it was only an equitable provision to give full effect to the measures which the hon. and learned Gentleman had already proposed. He begged to move.
MR. GLOVERformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words" In any such case the workman shall, to the extent of the liability of the insurers to the employer, have as against the insurers all the rights conferred by this Act on the workman as against the employer, and the insurers shall to the same extent have all the rights conferred by this Act on the employer as against the workman or contractors with the employer or any other person. Provided that, for the purposes of Section two of this Act, notice of the accident given to or a claim for compensation made upon the employer shall operate as notice to or a claim upon the insurers.'"—(Mr. John 0'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the object of this clause appeared to be to give a preferential right to workmen if their employers became bankrupt. He would point out as against that, that in the case of bankruptcy the workman would prove his claim in the ordinary way, and thus have all the rights which his employer had against his insurer. Having proved his claim he could make sure of the fund out of which his employer had arranged that the claim should be met. The hon. Member had suggested that instead of that the workman should go to the insurance

837
company. What would that mean? It would mean, first of all, the workman would have to commence proceedings against his employer; that upon the employer becoming bankrupt the whole matter would be transferred to the insurance company and fresh proceedings would have to be commenced; and then there might not be sufficient to pay him, and he would again have to come upon his employer. Such a clause would introduce considerable complexity into the Bill. To compel the workman to bring his action against the London company would involve a good deal of inconvenience and expensive litigation.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he understood that his hon. friends, having considered his Amendment side by side with an Amendment which was to be proposed by the Home Secretary they had decided in favour of the latter. He had no desire to set his view, however well instructed, against theirs, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONE*MR. GLADSTONE moved an additional section to Clause 5 providing that there should be included among the debts which are, in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt, or of the assets of a company being wound up, to be paid in priority to all other debts the amount, not exceeding £100, due in respect of any compensation which was accrued before the date of the receiving order or of the winding up.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 9, at the end, to insert the words '(3) There shall be included among the debts which under Section 1 of The Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, and Section 4 of The Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889, are in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt and in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up to be paid in priority to all other debts, the amount not exceeding one hundred pounds, due in respect of any compensation the liability where for accrued before the date of the receiving order or the date of the commencement of the winding up, or in the case of a weekly payment the capitalised value thereof, such value in case of difference being determined by arbitration under this Act, and regard being had to the probable duration of the incapacity, and the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act, 1897
838
shall have effect accordingly. (4) In the case of the winding up of a company within the meaning of The Stannaries Act, 1887, such an amount as aforesaid, if the compensation is payable to a miner or the dependants of a miner, shall have the like priority as is conferred on wages of miners by Section 9 of that Act, and that section shall have effect accordingly. (5) The provisions of this section with respect to preferences and priorities shall not apply where the bankrupt, or the company being wound up, has entered into such a contract with insurers as aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS (Denbigh District) moved to insert after the words just added words to meet the case where an employer became bankrupt before an award had been given. Under those circumstances legal proceedings in contemplation could not be brought on without a special order of the Court of Bankruptcy. To obtain that order it might cost the workman anything from £20 to £30, and he knew several cases where the County Court Judge had declined to allow the costs incurred in obtaining the order in the Bankruptcy Court. His point was that Section 9 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 should not prevent proceedings going on without the order to which he had referred. He begged to move.
MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eiffon)formally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"After the words last inserted, at the end, to insert the words 'Where an employer becomes bankrupt before an award has been given, whether the accident has arisen before or after bankruptcy, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 9 of The Bankruptcy Act, 1883, proceedings may be begun, continued, or concluded under this Act as though such bankruptcy had not taken place, provided that the trustee in bankruptcy, if any, at the time of such proceedings shall be added as a respondent.'"—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was true that nobody could proceed against a bankrupt without an order from the Bankruptcy Court, because the property of a

839
bankrupt was taken to be in the custody of the Court. To allow anyone to issue an execution under those circumstances would be a very serious step, and would entirely derange the whole proceedings.
Quest on put, and negatived.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER*MR. CLAVELL SALTER moved an Amendment to provide that a workman injured in circumstances which gave him a cause of action against some third person should not have the right to proceed simultaneously against both the stranger and his employer, but should decide against which of the two he would proceed in the first instance. The section as it stood would enable a workman to start concurrently two legal proceedings. That would be an abuse. He thought the Government would be willing to put in words to prevent this, and to provide that a workman should have both these methods in full, but that they must not be taken concurrently. It certainly was not desirable that workmen should be allowed to do things which ordinary people could not do, and he hoped the Government would offer no objection to his proposal.
MR. HILLSformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 0, line 20, after the word 'but,' to insert the words 'such proceedings shall not be taken concurrently and the workman.'"—(Mr. Clavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he saw no reason why a workman should not have this concurrent right. Proceedings against an employer had to be taken within six months, and within that period it was practically impossible for an action for negligence to be determined. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted it would have the effect of making the workman always proceed against the employer.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR MR. JOHN O'CONNOR moved an Amendment to provide that all questions as to the right to and amount of the indemnity under sub-section (2) should, in default of agreement, be settled "by action or by consent of the parties" by arbitration under this Act.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 30, after the word 'settled,' to insert the words by action or by consent of the parties.'"—(Mr. Joint O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT ROPNER SIR ROBERT ROPNER moved to omit Clause 7 (application of Act to seamen). He said a clause of this kind should have been provided in the Merchant Shipping Bill, and not in the measure under discussion. He had always been, and was, in favour of compensation to seamen who were injured, but this clause put shipowners on a different footing from, and at a disadvantage with, employers on land. There were many accidents on board ship for which the owners were not in any way responsible. They were inseparable from the perils of the sea, and yet, as the clause now stood, shipowners would have to pay compensation for injury or loss of life arising from such accidents. It was manifestly unfair that that should be so. He thought, too, an exception should be made in the case of injury or loss of life resulting from services rendered to ships in distress. Compensation in such cases should fall, not on the shipowner, who had risked his property in the endeavour to save the lives in peril on the distressed vessel, but on the State. The Merchant Shipping Act was more advantageous to seamen than this Bill, because it provided that in cases of illness or injury on a voyage the seaman was to have his full wages and maintenance together with medical advice. He was afraid that by applying this Act to seamen there would be a good deal of confusion between the two Acts.

841
There was a vast difference between accidents on shore and on board ship. When a man was injured on shore everybody knew about the accident and how it happened, and the employer had every means at his disposal to ascertain whether it had been brought about by the wilful misconduct of the man himself. When an accident, happened at sea the employer had none of these means at his disposal to ascertain the facts, and this was a difficulty that could not be overcome. With regard to ships in distress, to which he had already alluded, there were many cases arising. A case might occur in the Atlantic Ocean through the engines of a steamer breaking down, and the vessel might be entirely at the risk of the sea overwhelming her and sending her to the bottom. Under this Bill if another ship went to her rescue the captain would have to consider whether it would be wise for him to undergo the risk and endanger the property of the owner of his vessel, more especially when he would be liable to pay compensation for accidents. He might seriously consider whether it would not be wise under the circumstances that he should go and leave the vessel in distress. He did not, of course, believe that there was a captain in existence who would run away when he saw a vessel in distress. But if the captain went to the assistance of a distressed ship he risked his vessel. That was a risk they must run, but the sailors on board might be killed or injured, and it was unfair to a shipowner that he should be. called upon to pay compensation in respect of them. In such cases, the Government should step in and say to the shipowner, "You have done enough. You have risked your own property; the nation will provide compensation in cases of death or injury to your crew." There was another matter which he would urge, and it was that sufficient allowance was not made in the shipowner's favour for the burden he already bore under the Merchant Shipping Act and otherwise. He thought he had said sufficient to show that his Amendment was not moved merely to thrown an obstacle in the way of passing the Bill. He had always been in favour of compensation to sailors, but for himself and his fellow shipowners he naturally objected that they
842
ought not to be put in a different position from that of employers on shore. He appealed to the Government to leave out the clause altogether. There was still time to include it in the Merchant Shipping Bill which was before Parliament, and he hoped that even at the eleventh hour the Home Secretary would seriously consider the matter, and see whether it would not be better for the trade generally to include it in the Merchant Shipping Act.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Clause 7."—(Sir Robert Ropner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'seamen,' in line 31, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Member led them to believe at the opening of his remarks that his only objection was that the Government had dealt with this subject in the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and not in the Merchant Shipping Bill. But why, if that was his position, did he not move an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill in the Grand Committee transferring this provision bodily to that Bill?
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid this was not the first time he had mentioned the matter, and if he did not move in the Grand Committee it was because he found that the Committee was entirely under the direction of the Labour Party, and that it was useless for him to move any Amendments whatever.
MR. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is exceeding the limit of an explanation.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was obliged to the hon. Member for the explanation. He did not think it was true that the Committee had been so much under the ruthless and tyrannical domination of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the hon. Member was unable to move an Amendment. But if it were true, why, when the Bill got to the freer and healthier atmosphere of the House

843
itself, did the hon. Member not move? The truth was, it was only a question of method, and the Government thought it was much better that the seamen should be dealt with under this Bill. But the hon. Member went on to argue not only for a difference of method but for a difference of treatment for the seaman, on the ground that his case was different from that of the workman on shore, and that the shipowner was entitled to much greater consideration than the employer on shore. He agreed that the Departmental Committee recommended that the seamen should be treated under the merchant shipping law, but the particular method adopted in the Bill never occurred to the Committee. Sir Benjamin Brown, who was on the deputation which he met in the course of the summer, spoke about the seamen. He asked Sir Benjamin particularly whether in his opinion seamen should be treated precisely as workmen on shore. It was quite clear that the Departmental Committee quoted by the hon. Member was not at all with him in what he said in the latter part of his speech. Let him state why the Government had chosen to deal with seamen under the Workmen's Compensation Bill rather than under the Merchant Shipping Bill. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the sailor had certain benefits in the event of injury, and the shipowner was liable for his maintenance and care while he was on board and until he arrived home. When, however, an injured sailor landed, under the present law the shipowner had no further liability for him whatever. The sailor might be a cripple for life; he might have lost a leg, or both his eyes; whatever his condition might be, under the present law' when the sailor was landed in the United Kingdom the employer had no further liability for him. The sailor, therefore, might have to go on the rates, to which shipowners did not contribute. This Bill proposed that its operation should come in with the seaman landing in this country. It drew a clear distinction between the seaman's claims under the Merchant Shipping Act on the one side, and the workmen's compensation law on the other, so that there was no conflict between them. The Merchant Shipping Act applied so long as the man was at
844
sea and before he came to this country. When he came back to this country the Government said that the shipowner was not to be free from his responsibility to look after the man who was injured in his service. When the seaman came to this country the shipowner was to be liable for the man injured as in the cases of the mineowner or the factory owner. It seemed to him that that was a clear distinction which had never occurred to the Committee. He protested against the theory being put forward that the shipowner was in a wholly different position from the mineowner. If a ship were struck by lightning the shipowner claimed that that was an "Act of God," and that he ought to be relieved of liability. Providence did not think of the shipowner who did not put up a, lightning rod on his ship. The treatment the Government proposed to give was the right treatment, and he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was quite sure that whatever view the House might take of the Amendment, the motive which induced his hon. friend to move it was entirely disinterested He did not think the Bill would impose a burden on shipowners which was not imposed on other classes of the community. Taking the burdens on shipowners cumulatively, there might be some grievance; but what weighed with him was the obvious convenience of dealing with sailors in the same way as other men who engaged in work at the risk of their lives, especially in mines. In the Workman's Compensation Act introduced by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham the Legislature committed itself to an entirely novel principle, viz., that a man who was engaged for the profit of his employer and received injury, entirely irrespective of negligence, was entitled to compensation. He apprehended that no one would suggest that the considerations which induced the legislature to adopt that novel principle did not apply to sailors with even greater force than to other classes of workmen engaged in risky employment. If that were so, it would be highly inconvenient from every point of view, and un reasonable that they should have one

845
statute, defining the remedies of a person injured in land employment, and a totally different statute determining the liabilty of employers for injury to seamen at sea. His hon. friend had pointed out that the legislature should not discourage shipowners and the servants of shipowners from engaging in an arduous task in order to render assistance to ships in distress. But, shipowners as well as their employees, had very substantial inducements in rendering salvage services. His hon. friend said it was very difficult for a shipowner to collect evidence months afterwards, but every responsible person on board ship was an agent for a ship whose interest it would be to support the case of the shipowner, and to supply the shipowner with evidence. All these considerations made it impossible at this period of the day to differentiate between the position of sailors and that of other industrial classes in the community, and therefore he hoped that his hon. friend would see that the sense of the House was against his proposal, and withdraw his Amendment.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he was quite sure that his hon. friend in moving his Amendment did not mean to do anything against seamen or to deprive them of the compensation to which they were as much entitled as any other class in the community. But he thought there were peculiar circumstances connected with the case of seamen which justified the discussion. The proportion of accidents to seamen was sixty-four per 10,000, as compared with seven per 10,000 men engaged in other callings. Many of the accidents were attributable to "Act of God;" and difficult questions would arise as to the liability for compensation in such cases, and also: in cases of loss of life where men voluntered for life-saving service or in cases of collision with foreign ships. There might well be a national contribution to the Compensation Fund in the case of men who went out to save life at sea, but the subject was one more within the scope of the Board of Trade than of the Home Office. The late Government did not include seamen in their Bill, not
846
because they thought seamen ought not to be protected, but because they thought that class would be better looked after by the Board of Trade under the merchant shipping law. That policy was imposed upon them by the stringent findings of the Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir Kenelm Digby, a very strong man. That Committee devoted a large portion of their Report, some five or six pages, to considering this particular question. Sir Kenelm Digby looked at the matter both as the head of a Department, and as the chairman of that Committee, and from both those points of view he came to the conclusion that the Home Office was not the proper Department to deal with the question, they having no experience of seamen and no special knowledge to deal with this Bill after it had passed. The right hon. Gentleman thought that a Bill required no trouble to be spent upon it after it had passed, but after he had been a little longer in office, he would understand that the working of every Bill promoted by a Department required constant watching, constant diligence, and possibly an addition to the staff of that Department. There was one other point which differentiated the owner of a ship from an ordinary employer, and that was that if a collision took place between a British ship and a foreign ship, and both were sunk, there was no claim for compensation on the owners of the vessel, although the foreign ship might have been in the wrong, whereas there was a claim in like circumstances for compensation in the case of the British ship, namely, that the owner of the British ship had to pay compensation to his workmen, but had no claim upon the owners of the ship that had caused he damage. He did not wish to quote at length the Report of the Departmental Committee, because he had no desire to delay the Bill. But he did say that the Board of Trade would have been the better authority to deal with this question, and that the Merchant Shipping Act was the right one in which this power should be included. The mistake was to have two sets of Acts dealing with workmen's compensation, because now when a man received injury, he was entitled to be sent home, and whilst on

847
board ship he was cared for under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, administered by the Board of Trade, the moment he set foot on shore he would come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to be administered by the Home Office. He had every wish that the seamen should receive compensation, and the only bone he had to pick with the right hon. Gentleman was that he had taken the control of this matter into his own hands instead of placing it with the Board of Trade. Perhaps, however, as his hon. friend who moved the rejection of the clause might think he had attained his purpose by the discussion, he would not trouble the House to go to a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. F. E. SMITH*MR. F. E. SMITH moved an Amendment including the masters of ships among those who would be entitled to receive compensation. He said the Amendment raised a question of considerable practical importance. If he was right in his reading of the definition of the word "workman" in Clause 13, it would not apply to those masters of ships who occupied the highest positions in the merchant service, because under that section no man was reckoned a workman if his annual income exceeded £250 a year, and his Amendment was directed to including only those masters whose income did not amount to that sum. The House had committed itself to the view that men who earned their livelihood on the sea should be included in the Bill, and he did not see why they should exclude the masters—not of Atlantic liners, but of small vessels who would be in practically the same position as others who would receive the benefit of the Bill. The men on whose behalf he was asking for compensation earned only £3 or £4 a week, and sometimes less. They risked their lives every day in the course of their profession in exactly the same way as the seaman to whom the Act would apply. He should like to hear any single argument which could be urged why the master of a small vessel, living in a small house, whose social position was not distinguishable from that of the clerks whom the Government
848
had decided to include in the Bill, should not receive the benefits of the measure. Why should he not receive the compensation which other people in a similar position of life would receive from their employers? These men did not enjoy any particularly good opportunity for saving money in their lifetime or of making provision for their widows and children when they died. Such men had a greater position to keep up than the working man, and a great portion of their income went in keeping up the externals essential to the earning of their livelihood. He thought that everyone would agree with him that these men had no margin at all on their sea wages for leaving provision behind them in the interests of their wives and children. He had materials to prove that that was so. If workmen's compensation was right, on what principle were the Government going to say that these men should have no chance of having their widows and children provided for. if they met with an accident? In saying that they earned three or four pounds a week he thought he had grossly exaggerated their earnings, because he could give cases of hundreds of vessels where the master's earnings did not exceed two pounds a week. If a clerk receiving £200 a year, who was not exposed to one tithe of the risks of a master, was to come under the Act, on what principle was the Government going to say that a man whose life was one long risk, and who was only receiving, say, £150 a year, was not to be entitled to the compensation which was given to working men, clerks, and sailors? This was not a party question in any sense of the word, and he knew that there were hon. Members on the other side of the House who also felt that there was no logical justification for this exclusion. He believed the Bill was a good Bill and one in respect to which the Government was entitled to the gratitude of the House. They had listened sympathetically to the arguments addressed to them in Committee and had accepted Amendments to the Bill, and he now threw himself with the greatest confidence upon the sympathy of the hon. and learned Gentleman and asked whether he could not extend this Bill to this very deserving class—a class which had few

849
friends and whoso members lived laborious and anxious lives. He begged to move.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDseconded the Amendment, because in his view the hon. and learned Member for the Walton division of Liverpool had adduced an unanswerable argument in favour of what he claimed. It was not possible that this Amendment could be refused, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman should decline to make it clear that the class of seamen referred to in the Amendment would be brought within the operation of the Bill. Anyone who know anything about the small craft on the sea knew that there was very little difference between the captain and the ordinary seamen. The captain had to undergo the same hardships and was subject to the same risk of injury as the seaman. He therefore hoped the Solicitor-General would consent to consider the masters and officers of these small ships as workmen within the meaning of the Act. A good case had been made out by the mover of the Amendment, and he heartily joined with the hon. Member in his appeal to the Government. He hoped that in this case they would draw no distinction between those who "go down to the sea in ships."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 2, after the word '1894' to insert the words 'except that the word 'seaman' shall include the master of any ship.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he should have preferred the debate to have continued for some little time longer before he replied, because the Government were anxious to have a definite expression of opinion from the whole House. The masters of vessels were not originally included in the clause, because it was felt that a serious burden would be laid on the ship owners. There was no desire on the part of the Government to exclude ship masters from the benefits of the Act. Nor did they conceal from themselves the fact that there were a great many masters of small ships who
850
undoubtedly came within the general description of workmen, although they occupied in relation to their crews a somewhat exceptional position. The masters of the great liners were already excluded by the limit of £250. He himself doubted whether the Bill as drafted did exclude masters, because the definition of workmen it) Clause 13 did not do so. The question, however, was whether the House was of opinion that masters might be included in this Bill with other seamen. After listening to the debate, he thought the Government would not be far wrong in assuming that the House was in favour of the Amendment, and, that being so, they would gladly accept it.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid that masters of small coasting vessels ought to be included in the Bill, but he thought the Government, instead of adopting the Amendment offhand, should give themselves time for the consideration of the whole matter. There was a great difference in the case of captains and seamen, because the former had many opportunities of making money which did not appear on the surface. A few years ago some vessels were employed carrying the mails between Shanghai and Vladivostok, and he discovered that the captains on these vessels had not been making the usual allowances to their wives. Upon inquiry he found that the captain of one of the ships had been able to save all his wages whilst in board, and he had provided for his family with money earned in other ways. It turned out that the Russian officers at Vladivostok liked champagne, and the captains of these vessels bought champagne at Shanghai and sold it at Vladivostok to the Russian officers, making an immense profit on it. Some of his own captains had retired at the age of fifty-five years, having accumulated small fortunes which they could not possibly have done out of their wages alone. He thought the Government ought really to give this matter more consideration, and not deal with it offhand in this way.
MR. ASHLEYpointed out that sub-section (a) of Clause 7 provided that notice of an accident and a claim for compensation

851
must be served on the master of ships as if he were the employer. In that case if this Amendment were accepted and an accident happened to the master he would have to serve a notice upon himself. He thought some other provision was necessary to meet this difficulty.
MR. W. R. REAwelcomed the inclusion of masters within the scope of this Bill. In many cases although they were called masters they were really working seamen. In a good many instances they were captains of tugs who had been promoted from the labourers and ordinary sailors, and it was a great hardship that in consequence of promotion they should lose the compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled for injury. Every self-respecting shipowner would agree that a man who received injury during his employment on board ship should not be allowed to suffer in consequence. It was in the interests of the shipowners that they should know their full liability so that they might insure every member of the crew. The cases referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton would be excluded by the £250 limit.
MR. W. BECKETTsaid he did not hold any brief for the captains who earned more money than they were paid as wages, but he rose to put in a word on behalf of the masters of some of those very small fishing trawlers who received rather small salaries. On their behalf he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
MR. GODFREY BARINGsaid he had listened with great
852
satisfaction to what had been said upon this question. There were a large number of masters of small ship? who were in receipt of very low salaries, and he was sure they would greatly appreciate the fact that the Government were willing to accept this Amendment.
SIR ROBERT ROPNER SIR ROBERT ROPNER moved an Amendment to exclude apprentices from the operation of the Bill. He said that there was now a great dearth of English sailors, and to his mind the only way of supplying the want was to induce. owners to carry apprentices. He was afraid, however, that if shipowners were made liable to pay compensation to these apprentices in case of accident, they would not be so ready to carry them. He, therefore, thought that from that point of view it would be imprudent to put this liability on the shipowners. It would be sufficient to leave apprentices under the Merchant Shipping Act. He moved this Amendment entirely in the interests of supplying the mercantile navy with more English sailors.
LORD R. CECILformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 31, to leave out the words and apprentices.'"—(Sir Robert Ropner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member had stated that apprentices had no dependents, and would have nobody to leave their money to. In that case the shipowners would not be called upon to bear any burden.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDprotested against the Amendment as altogether unreasonable, seeing that apprentices worked as hard as seamen, and in addition usually paid a premium to the shipowner. He had had experience himself for two years on board ship as an apprentice. He did not know how the hon. Member for Stockton treated his apprentices, but he knew that parents were first of all called upon to pay considerable premiums to shipowners.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid that was very unusual.
MM. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he could assure the hon. Member that that used to be the Practice. Apprentices were frequently bound to work for a certain number of years without any remuneration at all, although in some cases an arrangement was made by which the apprentice received back again over a period of years the amount which had been paid as a premium. Hon. Members would remember the wreck of the "Primrose Hill," when seven apprentice boys were amongst those who were drowned. Some of the parents of those boys wrote stating that they had paid premiums for their boys on that ship, and asking if it was possible for them to recover compensation. It turned out that the ship was considerably undermanned. He was was sure the House would agree that such cases as those ought to come under this Bill. He hoped the hon. Member would see the inadvisability of his Amendment, and as a generous-hearted shipowner who never took premiums for apprentices, he trusted he would see his way to withdraw this Amendment.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid the hon. Member for East Clare, when he said
854
that premiums were paid for apprentices, must have been alluding to sailing ships. That was formerly the practice, but he could assure the House that no such practice existed in connection with the steamers with which he was connected. Under the circumstances, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ASHLEY*MR. ASHLEY moved an Amendment to provide that the benefits of the Act should be extended to foreign seamen only in special cases. The object of the Amendment was to restrict the operation of the Act in regard to foreign seamen, that was to say that the benefits should only be granted to foreign sea men in certain restricted cases. He asked hon. Members to clear their minds of their "settled convictions" on the fiscal question in considering this Amendment. The Amendment did not propose anything against the principles of Free Trade. He had not the slightest objection to the extra burden being placed on shipowners with respect to British seamen, but he did not see why that burden should be put upon them for the benefit of foreign seamen. It might be answered that there was no nation which treated English seamen worse than their own. He would point out that in 1898 France passed an Act which gave compensation to seamen, but it stated explicitly that the benefits of the Act were to be confined entirely to French sailors. That French Act had been in operation for eight years and there was absolutely no sign of any change being necessary through an increase of foreign sailors on French ships although British sailors on French ships were at a disadvantage under it.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 32, at the end, to insert the words 'British subjects or subjects of such states as His Majesty may, by Order in Council, from time to time provide, and are.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the answer to the Amendment need only be a very short one. To exclude sailors who were foreigners on board British ships from the operation of this Act would be to put a premium upon the employment of foreigners.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 6, line 34, after the word 'Kingdom to insert the words 'or of any other British ship or vessel of which the owner, or (if there is more than one owner) the managing owner or manager resides or has his principal place of business in the United Kingdom.'"
"In page 7, line 12, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'such depositions or certified copies thereof.'"
"In page 7, line 14, to leave out the word 'section,' and to insert the word 'sections.'"
"In page 7, line 15, after the words 'ninety-one,' to insert the words 'and six hundred and ninety-five.'"
"In page 7, to leave out lines 10 and 17, and to insert the words 'those sections shall apply accordingly.'"
"In page 7, line 23, to leave out from 'shall,' to the end of line 25, and to insert the words 'not be payable in respect of the period during which the owner of the ship is, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or otherwise, liable to defray the expenses of maintenance of the injured seaman or apprentice.'" —(Sir W. Robson.)
Amendments agreed to.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby) moved to omit sub-section (i), which seemed to him to be the most remarkable sub-section in the whole Bill. It ran—
"This Act shall not apply to such members of the crew of a fishing vessel as are remunerated by shares in the profit, or the gross earnings of the working of such vessel."
There was, at any rate on that side of the House, a very general desire that as many persons as possible should be included in the advantages to be given by this Bill; but many hon. Members would be surprised to know that the effect of this sub-section would be to exclude more than 100,000 fishermen in England, Scotland, and Ireland from those advantages. A vast proportion of the fishermen, especially on the east coast, worked on the share principle, and he supposed that some pressure must have been brought to bear on the Government, probably by some Scottish representatives, to exclude such fishermen from the Bill. If there was any body in Great Britain who deserved the sympathy of Parliament it was fishermen, who did such valuable work in providing food for the people, in saving life, and in going to the help of the crews of shipwrecked vessels. If sailors and apprentices were to be included in the Bill, why not give the same rights to fishermen? He hoped the Government would be able to give the House some sort of satisfactory answer as to how a sub-section of this kind had found its way into the Bill.
MR. COURTHOPEseconded the Amendment. He thought that fishermen ran greater risks than any other kind of seamen, and ran those risks in the interests of their employers. It had

857
been said that these men ran risks in their own interests, but he did not think that that was a sufficient answer, and he therefore hoped that the Government would favourably consider the Amendment and do away with an unnecessary and unjust restriction.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 8, line 14, to leave out paragraph (i)."—(Sir G. Doughty.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'fishing,' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONthought that both hon. Gentlemen who had spoken would have altered their opinions if they had been on the Grand Committee where this provision was excluded at the request of the fishermen themselves. They pointed out to the Government that every one of them was his own employer, as they shared profits, and although no doubt they were anxious to get compensation like other workmen where they were in. the position both of workman and employer they did not see where the compensation was to come from.
SIR G. DOUGHTYasked whether any fisherman from the eastern ports had desired to be excluded from the Bill.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Government had to make their inquiries both in the East and in the West, and they found that a great many fishermen in the East, some for instance in the hon. Member's own constituency, would be
858
included because they were not profit sharing fishermen.
SIR G. DOUGHTYsaid that many in Grimsby were profit-sharing fishermen.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that they had done their best to consult them, but the profit-sharing fishermen both there and elsewhere said they wanted to be left alone. If they were to be included who was to pay the compensation? It was a partnership ad hoc and the partnership lasted throughout the season. How was it possible to deal with a partnership of that kind as if it were a continuous employment which lasted throughout the year? The fishermen unanimously accepted this clause, and it was inserted at their instance. He hoped it would not be supposed that the Government had anything to do with the matter.
MR. CORYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep this sub-section in the Bill. The fishermen were in the utmost consternation when they heard of this Bill, and they wrote imploring him to see that they were not included in it. He consulted them himself, and they all desired to be kept out of the Bill, and said that if they were not, their great industry would be ruined. [Cries of "Agreed."] If the matter was agreed he would not pursue it further.
Amendment negatived.
SIR ROBERT ROPNER SIR ROBERT ROPNER moved to omit the word "fishing" from the subsection, so that the small sailing vessels engaged in the coasting trade might be placed on the same footing as the fishing

859
vessels contemplated in the sub-section. He said that many of these small vessels were being sailed under the same conditions as the profit-sharing fishing vessels, and he failed to see why a distinction should be made between the fishermen and those on board these small craft. In this case also there was no one who could be made responsible for the compensation, and therefore he asked the Solicitor-General to eliminate the word "fishing" altogether, and not to allow the Act to apply to small sailing vessels.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 8, line 15, to leave out the word 'fishing.'"—(Sir S. Ropner.)
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the provision as to profit-sharing fishermen was accepted at the instance of the fishermen themselves, but the Government had had no such representation from seamen engaged in small sailing vessels. If the Amendment were accepted the owners might give the seamen a small sum out of the profits in addition to their wages, and call them profit sharing seamen and thus evade the Act. The Government therefore, could not accept the Amendment
SIR E. CARSONcould not understand why, after the course followed in regard to the fishermen, this Amendment should not be accepted, because every argument applicable in one case was germane to the other. The truth was that in the case of both small sailing and fishing boats the men were really partners in the venture, and what really ought to happen was
860
that the crew who were so remunerated by profit should themselves form a mutual insurance, under which any person who met with an accident, who otherwise would have a claim under this Bill, would be compensated. The Solicitor-General had given them no reason for not accepting the Amendment except that the fishermen had come and asked for a particular clause, but he was not at all sure that the obligations of the Act had been brought home in their full force to the men on these smaller vessels where exactly the same system was in vogue as in the case of fishermen. Another reason why the Amendment should be adopted was that it would encourage the crews instead of merely making profits for their employers to become partners in the vessels and to work for themselves. They would thus obtain some share in the management of the general venture which was carried on under such risky circumstances and greater care would result. He hoped the Solicitor-General would further consider the matter. He did not know what inquiries the hon. and learned Gentleman had made or whether he had inquired into the views of the crews of these small vessels who were employed under those circumstances.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at one minute after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Botreaux (E. Loudoun) took the Oath.
PETITIONS.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of owners of shipyards, engineering works, factories, and other works on the north-east coast of England; Glasgow Master Wrights Association; Clyde Steamship Owners Association; Huddersfield Incorporated Chamber of Commerce; and Steel Ingot Makers Association; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against, of inhabitants of, or parents of children attending schools in parishes of Bamber Bridge; Brinksway; Ayot (St. Laurence); Llangibby; Barry (St. Paul's); Port Talbot (St. Theodore)'; Newcastle Emlyn; Kemp Town; Bath wick; Douglas; Platt; Major with Redwick; Everton (St. Cuthbert); Maohen; St. Catharines; Burford; Baglan; Rumney; Penrhwceiber; Cuck-lington; Norton Marleward; Melbourne; Naunton; Usk and Glaseoed; Watford; Hardwicke; Holystone; Stanhoe; Bir-kenhead; Hardwicke; Bath wick; Staud; Ribby-with-Rea; Wanstrow; and Marston-Biggott; of clergy and laity in diocese of Southwark; and laity in diocese of Southwark; of trustees of Church of England Schools in England and Wales, signing; of persons signing.
  Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 511 Sierra Leone (Report for 1905).

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE BERNE, 1900).
  Memorandum on the International Conference on labour regulation held at
  686
  Berne, September 1906; with the text of the documents signed at the conference.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 6th November, 1906, declaring that Alexander Robertson, telegraph clerk, sixth class, Post Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Treasury minute, dated 27th November 1906, granting a retired allowance to William Ward, second division clerk, War Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la and to be printed. (No. 225).

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  [SECOND READINGS].
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I rise for the purpose of commending to your Lordships' favourable consideration the Second Reading of this very important Bill. I do not intend to enter upon any matter except what may be described as strictly second-reading subjects, because the Bill is one that bristles with legal difficulties and difficulties which, in my opinion, can only be satisfactorily discussed in Committee, where we can fix our attention upon the particular points and save ourselves to some extent from straying from the direct issue. Now, my Lords, the career of this Bill has been as interesting as its subject-matter, and I am perfectly aware that His Majesty's Government is likely to be castigated and fustigated in reference to transactions which took place when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. I prefer to begin

  687
  by a reference to that subject in order to clear the way.
  When this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it was not in the shape in which it is at present in regard to one clause, which I must say I think is the most important clause in the Bill. The Bill proposed, not to relieve trade unions from liability to be sued in damages, but to limit the law of agency so as to minimise the number of cases in which that liability might be imposed. My hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General opened the Bill in a speech of great vigour, in which he expressed his own very strong opinion in favour of the Bill as it stood, which he was quite entitled to do, and he said that which form of the two was to be ultimately chosen must depend upon the opinion of the House of Commons. The House of Commons was practically unanimous. I do not speak of the Opposition, of which I will speak presently—it was practically unanimous on the Ministerial side in favour of the Bill being changed to the form in which it now appears before your Lordships. I am aware that the Attorney-General was not convinced, and other colleagues of mine in the Ministry have since expressed their preference for the original form. It therefore is legitimate for me to say that from the time when this controversy first began I always have been in favour of the form of the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships, because I believe it is a just demand which ought to be satisfied by Parliament.
  I said I would refer to the history of the opposition, and that I will do without the least reproach of any kind, either direct or covert. But the history of the opposition to this Bill is somewhat interesting. This Bill is substantially the same as that which was introduced in the House of Commons in the year 1903. I was a supporter of it then, and I had some share in drawing the Bill for those friends of mine who were on the Trade Union Council. In 1903 it was defeated in a Conservative House of Commons by thirty votes. It was brought in again in 1904, and was carried by twenty-nine votes. In 1905 further argument was held in the House, the Bill was more fully understood find more discussed, and in a
  688
  Conservative House of Commons it was carried by a majority of 122.
  Then came the general election, and the Bill of the Trade Union Congress in 1906 was carried by a majority of 350. The Government Bill passed the Second Reading without a division at all. But that did not conclude the interesting part of the career of this Bill, for I am practically right in saying that no employer of labour in the House of Commons had a word to say against it; and when the Bill came to a Third Reading Mr. Balfour recommended his Party not to divide against it, and therefore it conies up to your Lordships sealed with the unanimous approval, so far as divisions go, both on the Second Reading and the Third Reading, of the House of Commons. I respectfully commend to your Lordships' attention those facts as being full of significance, for I am not one of those who believe that our countrymen are so wanting in moral courage as to be afraid of opposing a bad Bill for electoral reasons. It was because the Bill could be justified by argument, as I am about to endeavour to justify it here, that the House of Commons came to the conclusion at which they arrived.
  There was a Royal Commission preceding this Bill. It was constituted by the late Government. It consisted, I think, of five gentlemen. One of them was a representative of the employers. The late Government refused to place on that Royal Commission any representative of the workmen, and the consequence was that the workmen said, as I think they were entitled to say—
  "This is not an impartial and fair Commission; it is not a Commission which there are all neutral members. It is a commission on which our antagonists represented and we are not represented."
  Accordingly they refused to give any evidence or any assistance at all to that Royal Commission not with standing which the Royal Commission has reported, as I think can be maintained in support of three out four of the principal parts of while this Bill is composed.
  I now come to What is more important than the merits or demerits of the Govern-

  689
  ment or the merits of the Opposition— namely, the merits of the Bill itself; and it is upon that, and that alone, that I ask your Lordships to concur. Some-one has said you never can understand anything in human affairs unless you understand how it grew, and I believe that to be true of this controversy. Trade unions are of old standing here, certainly 200 years. Until 1824 they were largely regulated by statute. After 1824 until 1871 they were principally left to the common law; and the tender mercies of the common law were cruel towards trade unions. Trade unions were held to be unlawful associations. A man could be indicted for belonging to them. It was held that strikes were unlawful transactions, and to such an extent did this penalising of these legitimate and useful associations proceed that it was decided in the year 1805 that a man could rob a trade union and embezzle its money with impunity.
  These were great and heavy disabilities, but there was one thing that they could have for their advantage. In those dark days the funds of the trade unions were not liable to attack by any suitor in any Court. In the report of the Royal Commission there is an abstruse, and, if I may say so with great respect, a fine-spun discussion of the law upon that subject as it existed before 1871. The Royal Commission think that in theory the trade unions might be sued, but in practice it was impossible to sue them. I am not concerned to enter upon the reasons why they could not be sued, but this I affirm, and no man will contradict me, that from the dawn of English history there never had been any attempt to sue a trade union in order to reach its funds to pay damages to any one who was supposed to be wronged. Whether that was a law of procedure or a law of principle, I do not enter upon the discussion. I think it was a law of principle. It is sufficient to say there never had been, and until the decision of this House in the year 1901 there never was any attempt, even an unsuccessful attempt, to make trade unions liable for damages in any action. That was, at all events, one of the advantages that they enjoyed in the years prior to 1871.
  690
  I see near me noble Lords who took a distinguished part in the fight which arose in those days. When I first began to take an interest in public affairs there was a great movement for the purpose of placing trade unions upon a proper and legitimate footing, among the men who had complained of this hardship, of the unfair position in which they were placed, of the absence of protection by the law to legitimate combinations, and of the liability to be pillaged in secret and persecuted in open Court for things which are now universally recognised as lawful. A Royal Commission sat in 1869, and in the end the statutes of 1871 and 1875 were passed, embodying principles of protection for trade unions. The first claim was that trade unions should be legalised, so that no longer should their funds be liable to be stolen or their members prosecuted for belonging to a union. That was accomplished in 1871 by the great Statute passed by a Liberal Government. The effect of that Act was not to incorporate trade unions, but to allow them to be registered with a sort of quasi-corporate existence, to protect their funds, and to prevent people from being prosecuted for belonging to them. That was the purpose of the Act.
  But observe, from the commencement of the discussion down to the time when the Act received the Royal assent, there was not a whisper in this House or in the other, or in the public Press, or anywhere else, that there was to be any change in the old practice of the law by which trade unions were free from having their funds attacked. I wish to emphasise this point. It was never suggested, till the Act of 1871 was passed, that the immunity which trade unions had hitherto enjoyed from action was to be interfered with. If that was really the effect of the Act of 1871 it was the undesigned effect, for no one knew that it was being done. It was done by inadvertence and not by intention. In the year 1901 it was discovered for the first time by your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, that this Act of 1871 had had the effect of depriving the trade unions of the immunities which they had enjoyed in every previous period of English history. That was the decision in the celebrated Taft Yale ease. I am not presumptuous

  691
  enough to suggest that that is not good law. I know the immense capacity and learning of the great Judges who so held. But it was accidental and undesigned law. The result is that that Act of 1871, which was intended to protect the trade unions and to be a boon to them, became a bane to them instead.
  From the year 1871 to 1901 everyone believed that the law was still such that trade unions could not be sued; and when this House came to the other decision, they overruled the Court of Appeal, which had decided in accordance with the universal belief in the legal profession, and among men of business and workmen, that trade unions could not be sued. The world went on very well between 1871 and 1901. There was a great multitude of strikes; but search the records of Parliament and the Press, and you will not find that any one suggested that the law ought to be altered, and if this new proposal which is represented as so shocking is to be stigmatised as unjust, it is at least an injustice under which since 1871 the whole world of industry sat still without one complaint being made anywhere of the unfair operation of the law.
  Trade unions, like the rest of the world, believed that the law was as I have said, and so believing they built up their great funds. From the Board of Trade Labour Gazette for March, 1906, I take the following particulars for the ten years between 1895 and 1904. During that time 100 principal trade unions spent £16,060,000, of which only 14 per cent, was spent on dispute pay, the rest being all spent upon benefits of various kinds All this was done in the belief that the law was as it had been in every antecedent period of English history; and then came the decision of this House in 1901 to say that the funds, painfully collected by half-crowns, shillings, and sixpences, were exposed to liability to be taken in satisfaction of damages. That is the case for the first part of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to place the law in the position in which every Englishman thought it was from the Norman Conquest onward up to the year 1901; and to prevent actions from being brought which never bad been brought with success until that year.
  692
  I submit that there may be some better reason that a craven compliance with the majority which induced the House of Commons to accept a proposal of this kind.
  Now I come to the second proposal of the Bill. In the years 1871 to 1875 picketing, among other things, had been made difficult or dangerous by the decisions of the Courts of law. A great deal of indignation has been expressed against the practice of picketing. It is an extremely disagreeable thing, I have not the slightest doubt. It is a phase in an industrial war. What it means is this—and I do not wish to minimise the discomfort of the transaction—that the men watch at the entrance of the works or at other convenient places, for the purpose of endeavouring to prevent others from going in to take their places while a strike is in progress. It cannot be done without some measure of discomfort, although it can be done—and I am glad to think that it nearly always is done—without violence or intimidation. If it is done with violence or intimidation, your Lordships will never hear me say that it ought not to be properly punished.
  But picketing is a thing which was legalised long ago by the law of England. It was legalised by the Act of 1859 which has since been repealed; and also it was legalised—and it is to the honour of the Conservative Government of that day that it was—by the Act of 1875. Lord Beaconsfield was the Prime Minister of that Government, and he was also the author of "Sybil," and a man with deep feelings on subjects of this kind. He sympathised with trade unions, as did Lord Cairns, one of the greatest Chancellors there has ever been in this country; and the third of the triumvirate responsible for the legislation of 1875is the noble Viscount who is here now, Lord Cross. He will remember these transactions well, for he was Home Secretary, and if he corrects me. I shall know that I am wrong. But I think he will not correct me. The second claim of the workmen was that picketing should be put upon a proper footing; and it was by intention put upon a proper footing by the Act of 1875. It was legalised for the purpose of obtaining information.

  693
  When the Bill was passing through the House of Commons a Member moved an Amendment for the purpose of saying that picketing should be lawful, not merely for the purpose of obtaining information, but also for the purpose of peaceful persuasion; and the noble Viscount, being then Home Secretary, rose and said in the House of Commons, as will be seen from a reference to Hansard, that it was quite unnecessary to press the Amendment because, as the Bill stood, picketing would be lawful for the purposes of peaceful persuasion. In 1896 it was decided that picketing was only lawful for the purpose of obtaining information. The noble Viscount accepted what he was told by his advisers, and most innocently led the House not to proceed with the Amendment authorising picketing for peaceful persuasion, because he was advised that it was already the law of the land and that there was no necessity for the Amendment. Can your Lordships therefore complain that we have put in a clause making picketing lawful for the purpose of peaceful persuasion? It is another reason why the House of Commons may have thought that this Bill, notwithstanding the attacks of jurists and professors, which, I believe, have been very copious on this subject, had some merits and some title to be considered.
  The third claim made by the workmen between 1871 and 1875 was that the law of conspiracy should be settled and made clear. They had suffered enough from the law of conspiracy. The law of conspiracy in this country is a very unsettled and a very difficult law to ascertain, and in regard to all subjects it would be better to have it cleared up. But the workmen said, "We want to have it cleared up in regard to trade unionsalone.' I have seen criticisms in regard to this Bill to the effect that it had been brought in only for one class. But then so was the Act of 1875 brought in for one class, and the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), Lord Beaconsfield, and Lord Cairns introduced a clause in the Bill of 1875 dealing with this law of conspiracy for one class alone. They dealt with it in this way. At that time no one took any interest in the question of civil liability, and your Lord-
  694
  ships will remember there never had been any attempt to make out any civil liability. It was only criminal liability that was thought of when an Amendment was being contemplated in the law of conspiracy. See what Lord Cairns, who certainly was not a revolutionary statesman, said—
  "The principle on which the Bill was framed was that the offences in relation to trade disputes should be thoroughly known and understood, and that persons should not be subjected to the indirect and deluding action of the old law of conspiracy."
  I cannot use any more severe censure of the law of conspiracy. There was accordingly a clause inserted in the Bill that no persons in a case of trade dispute should be exposed to criminal punishment for conspiracy—
  "Agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employer and workman shall not be indictable as conspiracy if the said act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime."
  Then came the new world and the new ideas, and every one seemed to have forgotten all this controversy connected with the settlements of 1871 and 1875. Decisions were given to the effect that there was a civil liability, and therefore the civil responsibility for conspiracy became very serious. This Bill proposes to place civil responsibility for conspiracy on the same footing as criminal, nothing more nor less.
  There is one other clause which is somewhat novel in point of matter. It is very technical and very difficult to enter upon except in the Committee stage, but I may give an illustration of the kind of case which is it intended to meet. There was the case of a strike where some Irishmen had been induced by the employers to come over to Whitehaven for the purpose of taking the places of the men who were out on strike. These Irishmen did not know that a strike was going on, and one of the officials of the trade union met them at the station and said to them—
  "My men, do you know what yon are coming for? You are corning to replace your comrades who are on strike. I will pay your faros back again to Ireland. Will you go back?"
  Not wishing to injure their comrades these men went back; but the trade

  695
  union was held responsible and had to pay damages because it was interfering with a contract.
  There was another case told to me by my friend, Mr. Shackleton, in which the hon. Member was himself concerned. It was a case in which men were working at standard wages, but the materials supplied by the employers were so bad that the men could not obtain their standard rate of wages. They struck, and other men came in answer to an advertisement which said that the standard rate of wages would be paid. The men knew nothing about the strike, but they were told that the statement about the standard rate of wages was wrong, because the materials were so bad that the standard rate of wages could not be earned. Those who advised the men were held responsible for correcting what was uncommonly like a fraud in the statement that the standard rate of wages was being paid. That is the class of case which is struck at by this fourth part of the Bill. The second, third, and fourth of the proposals I have indicated are in substance recommended by the Royal Commission, although the Royal Commission did not have the benefit of a single witness from the side of the workmen.
  I have now concluded my statement of what this Bill contains, and I wish to commend it to your Lordships, not from any political view, but because I believe myself that it is a just and honest Bill. I sincerely trust that it will receive the approval of your Lordships. In regard to any dependent, ancillary matter in respect of details, in the wording or the phrasing of the Bill, I will be ready to do my best to explain and to justify its provisions when we go into Committee; but I do not believe that your Lordships will not willingly and cheerfully give the measure a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I venture to follow the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it is certainly not because I have the temerity to try conclusions with him in regard to
  696
  the various questions of legal interpretation on which he has spoken, but I do desire at the outset to lay before your Lordships one or two considerations, not at all of a technical character, which you may perhaps do well to bear in mind. We all listened with the greatest interest to the history which the noble and learned Lord gave of the legislation which affects these associations. In a case of this kind it seems to me that we cannot be too particular to bear in mind the history of the question and what may be described as the trend of legislation. There can be no doubt that, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the trend of recent legislation has been strongly in the direction of a more liberal recognition of the rights and privileges of trade unions. I suppose the high-water mark of such legislation was reached when, in the years 1871 and 1875, the two measures to which reference has been made were introduced, the latter by my noble friend Lord Cross. Those measures went very far indeed in the direction of the recognition of trade unions, so far, indeed, that, if I remember aright, the noble Lord received the cordial approbation and thanks of the trade unions for the great service he had rendered them.
  But those two measures stopped, at least, so it seems to me very considerably short of the legislation to which you are now asked to agree. They certainly, as I understand them, did not confer on trade unions the wholesale immunities which they will enjoy under this Bill. The demand for further legislation has arisen in consequence of three well-known decisions of the courts, notably that decision of your Lordships' House which is generally referred to as the Taff Vale case. Since that decision there has been continuous pressure for further legislation. I do not think that the demand is by any means a surprising one, because it is the case—I rest myself upon the authority of Lord Dunedin's Commission—that that particular decision of the House came upon many people as a surprise.
  Since 1891 Bills for the purpose of amending the law in regard to trade unions have been repeatedly introduced, and, recognising that the question had to

  697
  be faced, the late Government appointed a Royal Commission, over which my noble friend Lord Dunedin presided. That in itself amounted to an admission on our part that further legislation might be called for. While that Commission was sitting there came the Bills of 1904 and 1905, which were passed by appreciable majorities. Then came the general election, when throughout the whole of the country in every constituency where there is an industrial vote this question of legislation to remedy the Taff Vale decision was brought before the voters, and the Labour vote was solidly cast in favour of such a change. We have now before us the Report of Lord Dunedin's Commission, in which a number of important changes in the law are recommended. With these facts before us there can be no doubt that legislation of this kind—I do not say the legislation embodied in this Bill, but legislation for the further relief of trade unions—is inevitable, and I venture to say that if we had been sitting on the benches opposite it would have been impossible for us to have avoided dealing with the subject.
  I pass now to the Bill before your Lordships. I shall not attempt to discuss its legal details. Those will be dealt with by others who will follow me, but I do venture to call your Lordships' attention to this, that the Bill is certainly not the Bill of Lord Dunedin's Commission, and that it is certainly not the Bill which was originally proposed to Parliament by His Majesty's Government. That is especially the case in regard to the provisions dealing with the immunity of trade unions' funds. The noble and learned Lord, anticipating evidently that this argument might be used, dealt with it very gracefully and airily, but I must say I thought not in an absolutely conclusive manner.
  I should like to remind your Lordships of what passed in regard to the Government Bill when it was first introduced. It was explained to the House by the Attorney-General, who, comparing the merits of the Government's proposal with those of another proposal which is virtually that now before your Lordships, said—
  "The proposition, I understand, is that, however great and ruinous the loss that may
  698
  be suffered by an individual, however unjustifiable the conduct of the union which may occasion that loss, even in the case of that conduct having been carried out by means of the use of the funds which are controlled by the union, yet those funds, the property of the union, are not to be made liable to redress the claim consequent on that loss. You must fairly face that proposition. I invite the House, before they put a proposition of that kind into legislative shape, seriously to consider its effect. It would be impossible to confine it to these combinations. If you place them in this position you will have to deal with claims on the part of other bodies also entitled to the consideration of Parliament who may ask that the same privilege should be extended to them. I ask the House is there not this danger attending the alternative policy to which I have referred, namely, that in your anxiety to check one injustice you may create another?"
  The Attorney-General went on to use another argument. He said—
  "We are a democratic country, we are a democratic Party, we are a democratic Parliament. But are you not proposing class privileges? In the old days of our law these immunities of class existed. They were the privileges of the aristocracy, and they have been abolished. Do not let us create a privilege for the proletariat. Are we sure that it is wise to remove from these unions, and particularly from the agents employed, a sense of responsibility? They are often swayed by passion, by excitement, and by natural feelings. Is it right that their agents should move about with the consciousness that whatever they do, the property of the union will not have to bear any loss? Is that feeling likely to produce caution, prudence, self-restraint, and regard for the rights and feeling of others? "
  I apologise for reading that long extract, but it expresses so much better than I can the feelings with which I, and I cannot help thinking many others of your Lordships, regard this question of special immunities that I think it worth while to lay it before the House.
  But, my Lords, in vain did the law officer of the Crown expatiate on the superior merits of the Government proposal. Within forty-eight hours that proposal was laid aside in favour of the very proposal which, in eloquent words, the Attorney-General had himself denounced. No Parliamentary episode, I will venture to say, was ever more remarkable than the manner in which upon that occasion the Prime Minister came forward and quietly put aside those of his colleagues who had spoken in the same sense, as the Attorney-General, and expressed himself unreservedly in favour of the private Member's Bill

  699
  which had been put forward in lieu of the Government measure. The colleagues of the Prime Minister had stated in public that nothing would induce them —this was the expression of one of them —to toe the line, but the Prime Minister came forward and toed it for them with a vengeance. The result is that the Bill now does precisely what the Attorney-General said should not be done, viz., secures absolute immunity for the funds of the trade unions.
  Unless I read the measure wrongly, things may be done under the shelter of this provision which will bring ruin, bodily suffering, and mental anguish to individuals, and occasion loss, danger, and inconvenience to the community as a whole. Do not let it be supposed that any of us desire that obstacles should be put in the way of the use of trade union funds for the purpose of promoting strikes. Still less let it be supposed that any of us desire that that portion of the trade unions' funds which has been subscribed for philanthropic purposes should be liable to confiscation in consequence of the foolish or unauthorised acts of persons connected with those unions. We would all welcome a change of the law which would have the effect of safeguarding the benefit funds of trade unions, and I would remind the House that among the recommendations of Lord Dunedin's Commission was one designed to effect that particular object. But Lord Dunedin's recommendation has been ignored, and this Bill places the whole of the funds of trade unions beyond the reach of the law, even where the conduct of the persons connected with those trade unions has been of the most atrocious description.
  Let me say that I am not at all reconciled to this change in the law by the fact that His Majesty's Government have extended a similar immunity to employers of labour. That may be a salve to the Ministerial conscience, but it seems to me to be at once an illusory and a most mischievous proposal. We have heard a good dea lof these bilateral arrangements, and I confess I have no great confidence in them. In this case, at any rate, it seems to me idle to suggest that the two
  700
  parties are really in a position of equality, and that because you say to the employer, "You may do what the person employed is able to dc," you therefore give to the employer a fair and proper measure of protection. May we not ask what sort of an eirenicon is this which tells the two parties that they are free to fly at each other's throats and resort to what one Member of the Commission called the "arbitrament of private war?"
  Then one word with regard to the question of peaceful picketing. Here, again, you have the admission by Lord Dunedin's Commission that some change in the law is desirable, but I confess that the clause on the table seems to me to be replete with dangerous possibilities. The noble and learned Lord gave us a slight dissertation on the question of peaceful picketing, and he said, if I remember aright, that peaceful picketing could not be done in a pleasant way. That is a very mild description of peaceful picketing as we are familiar with it. I would ask your Lordships' attention to what Lord Dunedin's Commission had to say upon peaceful picketing. They said—
  "What it comes to is "his, that watching and besetting for the purpose of peaceably persuading is really a contradiction in terms. The truth is that picketing, however conducted, when it consists of watching or besetting the house, etc.—and it is to be observed that the statute places no limit to the number of persons attending for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information or to the length of time during which such attendance may be maintained—is always and of necessity in the nature of an annoyance to the person picketed. As such, it must savour of compulsion, and it cannot be doubted that it is because it is found to compel that trade unions systematically resort to it. It is obvious how easy it must be to pass from the language of persuasion into that of abuse, and from words of abuse to threats and acts of violence. A considerable proportion of the cases of physical violence which occur during times of strike arise directly or indirectly out of picketing."
  That description seeing to me not quite consistent with the account given of the process of picketing by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he told us that in his view picketing need not be associated with the idea of violence or intimidation. With regard to the law of conspiracy I am not going to attempt to say a word. Impressed by

  701
  the fact that Lord Dunedin, in his Report, says that his colleagues—
  "have found it impossible to reconcile the opinions and dicta which have been pronounced by judges and writers of authority in the matter,"
  I shall not entangle myself in that morass.
  I wish, however, to say a word about another clause in the Bill, that which deals with the definition of trade disputes. I confess that that clause seems to me to be one of a most alarming description. What does it say? It states that—
  "The expression 'trade dispute' means any dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person; and in section 3 of the last-mentioned Act, the words 'between employers and workmen' shall be repealed."
  That section was not in the original Bill of His Majesty's Government, and it seems to me to be of the most far-reaching description, and to extend the immunities of the Bill in the widest possible fashion, even to persons of whom it could not be truly said that they were parties to what can be properly called a trade dispute. When such a trade dispute occurs, when this entirely undefined condition of things arises, there is apparently to be a general release from what a writer on this subject has described as the "irreducible minimum of decent behaviour," which the States expects of its citizens. How is the public to become aware that this state of private war has arisen? There is no proclamation, and we may find ourselves at any moment with a trade dispute in progress, and while that dispute continues it is scarcely too much to say the law of the land remains in suspense.
  This is a point which I know is regarded with the gravest concern by noble Lords connected with Ireland. Is it, or is it not, the case that under this wide definition of a trade dispute agrarian disputes in Ireland will be included? The Government say that is not their intention, but I hope when we come to discuss details that this may be established to our satisfaction. As at present advised I fail to see how agrarian disputes in Ireland, if the question of the employment or dismissal of a workman arises, can fall outside the scope of the measure.
  702
  I have now to ask your Lordships to join me for one moment in considering what the House of Lords should do with this remarkable Bill. It seems to me to raise in the most acute fashion a question which many of us must of late have been asking ourselves, the question to what extent this House is justified in barring the way to measures recommended by the majority of the House of Commons, but in our opinion detrimental to the public interest. I for one have always held that that question can admit of only one answer. I believe it to be the duty of your Lordships' House to arrest the progress o£ such measures whenever we believe that they have been insufficiently considered and that they are not in accord with the deliberate judgment of the country.
  We claim not for this House but for the constituencies the right of passing a final decision upon such questions. I venture to remind your Lordships of the words which fell from a great leader of this House, the late Lord, Salisbury, who once described this House as an instrument for reserving on all great and vital questions a voice for the electors and the people of this country. I ask you to apply that canon. to the case before the House. I cannot help thinking that whatever our opinion may be of this Bill, we have to admit that the voice of the electors has been heard with regard to it.
  Many extravagant proposals have been put forward upon the ground of an alleged mandate given by the constituencies to His Majesty's Government. I regard those claims, as a rule, with the utmost suspicion, but I think that i£ they can claim a mandate for anything they can claim a mandate for dealing with this question. If your Lordships were to refer this Bill back to the country, what would be the result? We can have no doubt as to the answer which the constituencies would give. I believe we should find the demand for a similar Bill renewed with greater intensity, and in a form embittered by the suggestion that the House of Lords was in conflict with the general desire of the working men of the country. There is another consideration which weighs with me,

  703
  it is that referred to by the Lord Chancellor when he dwelt upon the fact that throughout the discussions on the Bill the employers of labour in Parliament did not, so far as I know, raise a little finger to arrest its progress. That, to my mind, is a fact full of significance, which we cannot disregard. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the only course open to this House is to pass this Bill.
  May I be allowed to push the question even further, and say that in my humble opinion it would be unwise of your Lordships either to reject this Bill or substitute for it what would virtually be a different measure, whether the original Bill of the Government or any other. I cannot conceive that His Majesty's Government could accept such a proposal at our hands. They have, if they will pardon me for saying so, already run away from their own Bill; they cannot afford to run away again. What, then, would happen if we substituted for this Bill a widely different measure? There would be an appeal to the constituencies, not upon a clean-cut issue, but upon the rival merits of two Bills, both highly technical, both probably of a kind which your Lordships on this side of the House would not regard with any great favour. I should greatly deprecate an appeal to the people of this country upon such a ground as that.
  We are passing through a period when it is necessary for this House to move with very great caution. Conflicts, controversies, may be inevitable, but let us, at any rate so far as we are able, be sure that if we join issue we do so upon ground which is as favourable as possible to ourselves. In this case I believe the ground would be unfavourable to this House, and I believe the juncture is one when, even if we were to win for the moment, our victory would be fruitless in the end. I say, then, that, so far as I am concerned, I shall not vote against the Bill. I regard it as conferring excessive privileges upon the trade unions, as conferring dangerous privileges on one class and on one class only, privileges in excess of what the most trusted exponents of their views have formerly asked for, privileges fraught with danger.
  704
  to the community and likely to embitter the industrial life of this country, but I hold also that it is useless for us, situated as we are, to oppose this measure. If, however, we allow it to pass this House we have at any rate the right to say that we disclaim all responsibility for its provisions, and to express our hope that the common sense of employers and employed may prevent any untoward consequences from attending the reign of licence which the recklessness of His Majesty's Government is about to inaugurate.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess that I listened to the closing words of my noble friend's speech with the very deepest regret. I think it is somewhat new in the history of this House that it should be admitted that a Bill is injurious, dangerous, and unjust, and that nevertheless your Lordships are not to divide against it. I do not think that this is one of those cases in which I should challenge those with whom I have acted all my life, but I confess that I acquiesce with the greatest reluctance in the course which my noble friend has advised the House to follow. I feel that this Bill is most unjust, and that it is contrary to the spirit of English liberty.
  I listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I confess I thought his history, beginning from the Norman Conquest, was somewhat fanciful. I do not think trade unions were known, or even contemplated, in those days. There is no doubt that great oppression was used in this country to to various classes of persons, and that the spirit of freedom gradually evolved our constitution as it stands; but the notion that trade unions have been suffering from injury and oppression since the Norman Conquest is one of those little fancies of rhetoric to which I think the noble and learned Lord is not accustomed.
  The question is not one of technicalities; it is a very simple one indeed. It is whether one particular class of the community are, or are not, to be freed from the ordinary responsibilities of their actions in a trade dispute; and the only reason advanced for this amazing

  705
  proposition is the idea which was said to prevail from 1871 to 1901 that trade unions could not be sued. Personally, I think that idea was a mistaken one. My noble and learned friend said it did not matter whether it was a question of principle or a question only of procedure. He will forgive me for saying that that is exactly the reverse of what I should have suggested. If it were only a question of procedure, then there was no significance at all in the immunity of trade unions. If it were a question of principle it would be a very different thing. But it is a question of principle which is now endeavoured to be put before your Lordships for acceptance. What is that principle? My noble and learned friend said the world went on very well then, and there was no question about the liability of trade unions. In one sense that is true. It is true that there was no action brought for civil remedy. But were there no indictments, were there no proceedings against trade unionists for misbehaviour?
  I remember very well when I was at the bar hearing that distinguished judge, Lord Bramwell, who was not one of those who sat on this side of the House, saying that the distinguishing characteristic of English law from its earliest period was that a man's will was as much protected by it as his body; and that if by intimidation or any other means you try to coerce a man's mind you are guilty of an unlawful act. What is it we have got to deal with here? This Bill says in terms that if a man does wrong to another in the course of a trade dispute the Courts are to have no jurisdiction. I venture to say that so disgraceful a section has never appeared in an English statute before. You admit the wrong, but you say the man who does the wrong shall have immunity because he belongs to a privileged class. Was there ever such a thing heard of in a civilised country?
  It is said that a similar immunity is extended to the employer as to the employed. What does that come to? In the case of a trade dispute those who administer the law are to retire, and these two are to be given letters of licence to do as they please with one
  706
  another. I protest against such a principle of law being embodied in a statute, and I cannot think that people really understand what is at the bottom of this Bill. A great many of the employers were no doubt under the impression that the Bill which is now before your Lordships would never be proceeded with at all. I notice that the employers in the House of Commons only have been referred to. But what about the employers outside the House? Have they had their minds applied to this Bill? Was this particular form of legislation put by way of mandate at the General Election? I doubt it; and, even if it had been, I should very much doubt whether the full effect of it was contemplated.
  By this Bill you are getting rid of one of the principles of English law. What is it that gives confidence in English law? It is that it recognises the principles of justice. The principle of law contained in this Bill is absolutely contrary to the whole spirit of the Constitution. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to the manner in which trade unions had gathered together their great funds, and incidentally I must say I thought it a little remarkable that these trade unions which are to get immunity by reason of an argument ad misericordiam are able to administer such a sum as £16,000,000. Would there be any difficulty in protecting the funds of trade unions which are used for the purpose of sick benefits and so on? No one doubts that legislation directed to that object would be welcome. It is recommended by the Royal Commission. But that will not do. Why not? Because the immunity is sought for funds which are used for what is practically civil war in another form.
  In my opinion, this is a most serious alteration of the whole principles on which our laws are based. You are depriving English law of what has been its boast—its equality and its impartiality. It will not be possible to say in future that all people are equal before the law. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack spoke of jurists and professors as being persons who had denounced this legislation. Well, jurists and professors have some knowledge of the jurisprudence of which they are talking. I know that in

  707
  the opinion of some people ignorance is a qualification, and education a disqualification for the exercise of any rights; but, apart from those peculiar persons, I should have thought that the opinion of jurists and professors was of some importance in considering the legislation of the country. I notice that it was in no measured terms that jurists and professors pointed out the gross injustice of this Bill. No one has better disclosed the defects of the Bill than my noble friend, who has suggested that it should be read a second time. On what principle does it rest? Can anyone tell me what is the principle of this Bill?
  What I cannot understand, and what nobody has yet explained, is why these particular persons—employers and employed—are to be placed outside the law. What example for such a proceeding is there in our Constitution? I seek in vain for an answer. Now, let me read the language of the Bill itself, for I confess I should have thought nothing more than this would be necessary to condemn it. Clause 4 provides that—
  "An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court."
  Language fails me to say more of that than that it speaks for itself. Anything more outrageously unjust, anything more tyrannical, I can hardly conceive. My noble and learned friend said that in dealing with this question we are not to listen to jurists or to professors. If I refer to what was apparently the most prominent thing in his mind—namely, what the Attorney-General had said, what Mr. Asquith had said, and what Mr. Haldane had said—I care not at all for their utterances as a stone to throw at the Government of which they are members, but what I say about them is that they are gentlemen of high authority, of great learning, and persons whose views on such a subject are well worth consideration. I invoke their authority to show how utterly indefensible is the Bill now before your Lordships.
  The Government have adopted what has been in the first instance repudiated. I do not care about the consistency of the
  708
  politicians; all I ask is that the lawyers should explain why they have changed their minds. The question is whether this House ought to act in the way proposed. There is no pretence that the Bill is just and right. What it comes to is this—"We have a very large majority, and while we have it, and we hope to retain it for a long time, we will ask such a Bill as you shall not be able to undo hereafter." That is not a reason why this House should acquiesce in what your Lordships believe to be unjust. While I do not like to acquiesce in what I believe to be wrong, I do not desire to raise difficulties and make the conflict worse than it would otherwise be.
  I have here for presentation a great number of petitions from persons who are certainly entitled to be heard, but I will not trouble the House with them all. One of these petitions says that the petitioners, whilst not approving of the terms of the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons by the Attorney-General, are prepared to accept its terms generally as a reasonable compromise between employer and employed. The Bill was, however, afterwards amended in such a manner that the petitioners consider that it is most unjust and detrimental to their interests as employers and to the interests of trade and commerce. That is a specimen of a great many petitions. I have petitions from the manufacturers of malleable iron and steel in the county of Lanark, from the colliery proprietors in the county of Monmouth, the owners of dry docks and ship repairers in the county of Monmouth and the adjacent counties, and the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association. The petitioners, representing important interests in England, Scotland, and Wales, describe the Bill as being likely to aggravate disputes between employer and employed, and interfere with trade and industry.
  At the same time, it is suggested by most of them that they are and have been on terms of perfect amity with their dependants and workpeople, and that the effect of the Bill would be to stir up strife and destroy the harmony that has. hitherto prevailed in their industries—
  "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done ! "

  709
  If immunity is given to a certain class from the consequences of their acts, is it in human nature to resist the temptation? I understand that the strength of the trade unionists is 2,000,000, and that of non-unionists about 8,000,000. If the Bill passes, is it likely that these 8,000,000 will remain outside the organisations enjoying immunity? This is a Bill for the purpose of legalising tyranny, for the purpose of taking people outside the ordinary courts of law. I do not want to be a prophet of evil, but I cannot help saying that this Bill is likely to produce commercial distress, and extremely likely to produce the sort of warfare in an intense degree which it appears to be contemplated it may produce. It may be also that it will drive justice from her seat. I do not want to be a prophet of evil; I dare say that, notwithstanding such a Bill, we may recover ourselves, but I believe it will be after much suffering and much injury. It may also take us a long time to recover. I believe in my conscience that if Parliament passes the Bill they will strike a serious blow against the spirit of freedom which has hitherto reigned throughout our laws.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I trust that the gloomy prophecies of the noble and learned Lord may not be realised, and at any rate I hope I may succeed in persuading your Lordships that the law in regard to the matters dealt with in this Bill is in a very unsatisfactory, unsettled, and complicated state, and that this Bill does something to remedy that defect. We surely should always be agreed that the law which workmen are called upon to obey should be clear, and that they should thoroughly understand the law which governs their actions. We have heard, in the opening of this debate, that so far back as the year 1876 Parliament stepped in and altered the law of conspiracy ill regard to trade disputes where crime was involved, and since that year workmen have been able to combine together, owing to special legislation in trade disputes, without being guilty of the crime of conspiracy so long as the acts which they committed would not be crimes if committed by one person. This Bill in the second clause simply assimilates the law as it
  710
  now exists with regard to criminal law to civil liability in trade disputes.
  As the law, as I understand it, now stands, there is this difficulty, that if workmen combine, and if they are impelled by what the law holds to be unlawful motives, although they commit no unlawful act, they are liable in a civil action if damage ensues as the result of their conduct, although if one man did the same thing with the same motive he would not be liable. That surely is a complicated state of the law. If one man, for instance, does merely that which is lawful, whereby injury is sustained by another, the motive with which he does that is quite immaterial. You cannot, by ascribing a bad motive, make that which is lawful unlawful; but it is according to our law otherwise when the persons combine. Then their motive, their intention, can be inquired into, although they commit no unlawful act, and if their motive is held by the Court to be bad, malicious, injurious, and if damage ensues, then an action will lie at the suit of the man who is injured. Surely this is extremely perplexing to everybody.
  Every trade dispute, I care not whether it be a dispute between employers or a dispute between employers and workmen, is in the nature of an industrial war. In the year 1898 employers were told by the Courts of law that if their principal object was to benefit themselves they might commercially fight their rivals; they might boycott them, they might undersell them, they might drive them from their trade, although they knew that by doing so they would injure and ruin them. That was held in the case of employers, but in the year 1901 workmen, on the other hand, were told that if they combined with an intention to injure and did injure, although they committed no other unlawful act, they were liable in damages for the injury which was sustained. That made an inquiry into motive essential. In an industrial war you hit out for yourselves, but you intend at the same time to injure your opponent, and to find out which is the predominant motive, whether to benefit yourself or to injure your opponent, is surely a very difficult matter.

  711
  The answer is that juries have to decide that, and when the working man is brought into court at the suit of an employer, what does he find? To judge this extremely subtle and difficult question, which requires all the skill and impartiality that a man can possess, he finds himself confronted by a jury very probably selected by his opponent from a special class, a special jury naturally with feeling towards the class to which they themselves belong. This seems to me to be a powerful argument to justify assimilating the law as to civil liability to that as to criminal liability. That is all that the Bill does in Clause 1.
  Clause 2 deals with picketing. This is really all it comes to. The law, as it stands, says that you may peacefully picket if you do so merely for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information; but if you go further and attempt to persuade it is unlawful. Now, what is the reason of that? Is it reasonable to tell working men that they may stand outside an employer's works for the purpose of telling workmen who are about to enter that there is a strike on, but that if they go further and advise the men not to go in, they are committing a crime in the eye of the law? Surely, this is manifestly unreasonable. It is a distinction without a difference which this Bill very properly takes away.
  Clause 3 has become necessary having regard to the dicta of some eminent Judges in a particular case. If these dicta remained as the exposition of the law, it would be absolutely impossible to conduct a strike in accordance with the law, because, for instance, it was suggested that to call upon men to leave work was an illegal act if any one of them was unwilling, having regard to the power over their wills of the combination, and if any one of them happened to be working under a contract, to call upon him to leave work would be illegal and actionable, even if he was willing and anxious to leave work. Surely that is an irrational state of the law. A great deal has been said about its being improper, illegal, wrong, and I do not know what, to make it harmless for a man to persuade another to break a contract. In regard to that, all I can say is that every lawyer
  712
  knows that that has been a disputed point; it is even now disputable. It has been a disputed point for years whether or not it is actionable for one man to persuade another to break a contract. There were two occasions, one in 1853 and one in 1881, when the Courts held that it was actionable for one man to persuade another man to break a contract, but on each of those occasions there was a Judge who differed from his colleagues; and I, perhaps, may be pardoned for saying that I have hereditary tendency to be rather convinced by the judgment of those two particular Judges than to be convinced by the judgment of the majority from which they differed. But, however that may be, it is enough to show that the point has been disputed and is highly disputable, and to make it quite clear in trade disputes that it shall not be an illegal act for one man to persuade another man to break a contract does not justify the heated accusations against this part of the Bill that have been levelled at it by opponents of this clause.
  The main controversy has no doubt arisen round Clause 4. It is the clause which renders the funds of trade unions immune from action. Why is it said that this is a great novelty in legislation? Before 1871 we heard that trade unions were mere aggregations of individuals. They were clothed with no powers or rights, and they were subject to no legal liability. I do not believe, in spite of what the Commissioners say, that before 1871 you could have brought an action and attached the funds of a trade union, because a trade union was not an entity which could authorise an act, or could be the principal of any agent, and, therefore, in my humble opinion, before 1871 the funds were as immune as they would be under the provisions of this Bill. At any rate, those who passed the Act of 1871 clearly intended that the funds of trade unions should be immune. Why do I say that? I pass by the expressions in debate which were used at the time, but in the Act of 1871 a special provision was inserted permitting the trustees of the funds of trade unions to sue and be sued in respect of their property. That was to make an exception in favour of the unions in that sense, namely, that in respect of

  713
  their property the trustees could sue and be sued, but that provision would have been senseless if the funds of the unions could be attached for any action of tort brought against the union. And the fact that that provision was put upon the Statute-book proves to me that those who passed that Act intended in other cases that the funds of unions should be immune.
  From 1871 to 1901 trade unions were supposed to enjoy immunity from actions of this character, and did enjoy it, and why in. the next thirty years all these terrible things should take place if this Bill passes I am at a loss to discover. In 1894 a Royal Commission on Labour made a Report, and in that Report, which was signed by Sir Frederick Pollock, an eminent jurist, appears the following sentence—
  "Persons injured by the action of trade unions and their agents can only proceed against the agents personally."
  Therefore, it was quite clear that that Commission, and Sir Frederick Pollock among them, thought that at that time the funds of trade unions were immune from actions brought against them. Then came the fateful year of 1901. It was then held that a trade union could be sued in tort for an act done by one of its members, and that since 1883 a trade union could be sued and its funds attached by means of a representative action. This came as a complete surprise to everyone. Of course, it is the law of the land. No one doubts that; but certainly Parliament never intended it to be the law of the land, and certainly lawyers and laymen alike never thought it was the law of the land. This Bill simply puts back trade unions into the position which Parliament, lawyers, and laymen thought they occupied. That the public was not thereby endangered or damaged, that none of these prophesied consequences ensued upon this state of things, is shown by the fact that during those thirty years no effort was made in Parliament to render the funds which were then thought to be immune liable in actions of tort, which certainly would have been the first thing Parliament would have thought of if the immunity of those funds carried these terrible consequences in their train.
  714
  It is said that the Bill places trade unions in a perfectly privileged position. No Person if he commits or authorises a tort is rendered immune by this Bill, whether he belongs to for trade union or not, and when we talk of the funds of a trade union I do not know that those funds are any more immune than the funds of a club, or funds gathered together for political purposes at the Carlton Club and elsewhere. They are as immune, but no less immune, than the funds of trade unions under this Bill. We have heard with satisfaction that although this is said to be a tyrannical Bill, and although a wrong is said by it to be done to the community, this House is going to pass the Second Reading. I only hope that the precedent of the Education Bill will not be followed, and that your Lordships will not, while doing lip homage to the principle contained in the Bill, mutilate it out of recognition in the Committee Stage. If you do, my Lords, I submit respectfully that your action will seem to be all the more unfair because in this House there is no representative of the class of work men whose interests are so vitally affected by this legislation. I trust, therefore, that the Bill will pass into law, if not in the actual form, at any rate in substantially the same form, as that in which it is now introduced to your Lordships.
  LORD KELVIN: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships' House will never pass a Bill which contains such a provision as this—
  "An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters … in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any Court."
  If a tortious act is alleged against a trade union, there is to be no redress. I speak in the sense of justice and injustice, liberty and coercion. I feel for the workmen who would lose their liberty if this Bill passed into law. It seems to me a distinct duty, in the interests of right against wrong, and in the interests of liberty and justice, that your Lordships should reject this Bill.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, as I have placed a Motion on the Paper to

  715
  move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, I should like to say a few words. In the interesting speeches we have heard up to now, the interests of the trade unions have been mentioned and the interests of the employers touched upon, but not a word has been said about the interests of the great majority of the workmen in this country who do not wish to belong to trade unions. They are the very large majority, and I have not heard one word dealing with their interests. My only reason for putting down the Motion which stands in my name was to enter a protest on behalf of the great majority of the manual workers of this country who are not organised in trade unions. I am not taking into account in any way how this Bill may influence disputes between masters and men. What I wish to do is to call your Lordships' attention to the treatment that in every case is meted out by trade unionists to workmen who do not belong to their unions, and to point out that this Bill will put into the hands of trade unions a most dangerous weapon of tyranny and coercion. The number of workmen who do not belong to trade unions exceeds very largely those who are members of trade unions.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: They are nine to one.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I am assured by the noble Earl beside me that they are nine to one. I think it is generally known that trade unionists in nearly every case object to working with non-unionists, or, as they describe thorn, blacklegs. I do not think the contrary has ever been found to be the case, that non-unionists object to work with trade unionists. This Bill, I contend, will put this great majority of workmon—the non-unionists —at the mercy of the smaller body, or, I should rather say, at the mercy of the leaders of what I may describe as an organised minority. The non-unionists in many cases will have no option but to remain out of work or join the union. I think this is quite contrary to the principle of justice and the love of fair play which is supposed to exist in the English character. I must say I am astonished to find a measure of this description brought forward by a Government which professes strongly to advocate free trade, for I think your Lordship will agree
  716
  with me that this measure is protection in its very strongest form. Peaceful picketing, as it appears in the Bill and as it has been described by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, is one thing, but peaceful picketing as construed in the usual practice of strikes is quite a different thing. What the trade unionists employed in a strike may deem peaceful I think most Members of your Lordships' House and most other people would regard as acts of severe violence. I remember some years ago a person being brought before mo on a charge of cracking a man's head. He told me that it was only a peaceful blow. I think you might apply the same interpretation of peacefulness to trade unions in the case of picketing. We may be told that His Majesty's Government have a mandate from the country to bring in this Bill, and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has stated that the subject has been before the constituencies. But the question is, Did the constituencies fully understand what they were dealing with? If we are to believe that this is a mandate from the country, then we are to believe that everyone of that large number of workmen who have declined to join trade unions, as well as that very numerous class of our fellow-countrymen who are affected by strikes, were content that the weapon of coercion should be placed in the hands of a privileged minority to be used against them. I do not think this is possible. I cannot believe that this measure was properly understood by those whom it will affect most, and I hold that the country should have a chance of considering and expressing its opinion upon the Bill before such a drastic measure becomes law. But after what my noble Leader said in his speech, indicating what he considered should be the procedure of this House, I have no choice but to ask permission of your Lordships to withdraw my notice of Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
  LORD JAMES OK HEREFORD: My Lords, if I followed my own inclination there are reasons which would cause me to take no part in this discussion, but after the words of my noble friend, Lord Lansdowne, there would be a want of moral courage on the part of those who feel strongly on this matter if they

  717
  remained silent. The noble Marquess, at the conclusion of his speech, stated that this Bill would pass, but that he and his immediate followers would bear no responsibility for the passing of it. That, I submit, is an untenable position. This House must bear the responsibility of its action, whether it supports the Bill or merely does not oppose it. The noble Marquess, with the strength at his command, cannot disclaim responsibility.
  When in March, 1869, Lord Salisbury urged this House to pass the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill he did not toll noble Lords that they were not responsible. He urged them to hoar the responsibility of taking the course which he felt they wore compelled to take; and I venture, with great respect, to point out to my noble friend that he cannot disclaim responsibility if he allows this Bill to pass in its present form. The moral courage which animates him will, I trust, cause him to feel, before this discussion is over, that he must assist in moulding the Bill into a proper shape, and that he cannot occupy a position of non-interference.
  The debate this evening recalls to my memory discussions of long ago, memories of thirty-five years ago, when this conflict first arose. At that time I did my best to support trade unions. I saw something of the drafting of the Bill of 1871, and I fought strenuously in the interest of trade unions during the pro gross of the Bill of 1875 through Committee, and I have sufficient recollection of what I then thought was right to express a hope now, and to bear the responsibility of saying so, that this Bill will receive a Second Reading. There is enough in the Bill to justify this claim on solid ground. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in his most graceful speech, referred to the provision as to peaceful picketing. I think that the protection of such picketing is but an act of justice.
  I regret that for the moment my noble friend Lord Cross has left the House, for I wished to recall to his memory a scene that occurred on a warm day in August, 1875. It was on a Saturday afternoon, I recollect, when some forty of us remained true to the cause we were advocating, and pertinacious claimed
  718
  that peaceful picketing should be justified in the Bill we were considering. My noble friend Lord Cross was in joint charge of that Bill with the late Lord. Cranbrook, and those two Members of the House of Commons were spokesmen for the Government who had introduced the Bill. They only refused the Amendments which we moved for the insertion of the peaceful picketing provision because, on the authority of Lord Cairns, a great Lord Chancellor, they declared their positive conviction that the sanction of peaceful picketing was to be found within the Bill. That opinion has since been declared to be wrong, and the promises and Parliamentary pledges of Lord Cross and Lord Cranbrook have never been fulfilled. It is but an act of justice, therefore, that this provision, which was then promised, should now be made clear; and personally I shall vote for the Bill in order to see that injustice removed.
  But your Lordships will have to discuss the fourth clause very carefully and thoroughly, for the provisions therein contained one all-important. The passage or rejection of that clause will mark an era in legislation, and there can be no absence of responsibility. I am aware that we are not yet in Committee, but I think it is advisable that we should clear the air a little. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that the clause only declared the law as it was supposed to have been since; 1871; but originally the question had never been mooted as to whether or not trade unions should be suable. Trade unions took their place in the ranks of the public generally; there was no asking for special immunity or privilege. At that time there was no procedure to deal with a body which was not incorporated, no power to recover damages in the Court of Chancery, and therefore it was useless to proceed against the trade unions. But now the trade unions ask for a special immunity for themselves and for no other body. The Primrose League is very much in the same position as a trade union, but if they were to do wrong they would be held liable. The same law would hold good for other bodies similar in kind, but hero there is a question raised of immunity for one body only.

  719
  The Lord Chancellor used an argument to which a great deal of heed should be given. He said that since 1871 trade unions had not been sued until 1901, and that no harm had arisen in the interval. What does this mean as a question of legislative principle? Personally I at once bear testimony to the wisdom that has guided the counsels of trade organisations in the past. I have known many of them. There was Mr. Knight, the secretary of the most powerful union, the boiler makers' union, who for forty years so ruled his union in the cause of peace that no friction ever existed between the employers and these union men; and there are men like Mr. Abraham, of Rhondda, Mr. Richard Bell, and Mr. Shackleton. They have been wise counsellors in the checking of tortious acts, but can your Lordships legislate simply on the anticipation that there will be a supply of such men in the future? That is not the principle upon which legislation should be based. Your Lordships have to look to the future and to see that great principles should not depend on an accident, though I hope that such men as I have named will continue to guide the counsels of the trade unions.
  It is urged that, as no tortious acts have been committed in the past, no tortious acts will be committed in the future. If this be so, what is the need of Clause 4? Indeed this clause is very material because it goes far beyond the question of trade disputes. It says in effect: "Simply register yourselves as a trade union; whatever wrong you may inflict, whatever destruction of property may be caused, we, the Legislature, give you our blessing to go forth and do it." While I support the Bill, therefore, I cannot refrain from pointing out that this clause is most far-reaching. I believe that every Party in the State is acutely interested in the decision to be arrived at in the passage of this clause. I appeal to my old Liberal colleagues to say whether they were in the habit of attacking the Tory Party because as the Party of ascendancy they had passed legislation to protect particular interests. I know I have aided in such attacks. We could appeal to history, and trace legislation by landowners for the protection of their interests. We used to point to the ascendancy of the Church of England pressing hard upon Nonconformists. Comparatively recently there was the maintenance of the
  720
  Irish Church, the Church of the minority, to denounce. I ask Liberals what are they doing this evening, and to say whether they will ever be able to use such arguments again? They are not only sharpening an old weapon, but they are turning it against themselves. For I challenge them to point in the history of our legislation to one measure of the Conservative Party so full of class interest and so full of class protection as the fourth clause of this Bill? Still more confidently do I appeal to trade unionists —whatever shade of opinions they hold, they are of the democracy—they advocate its claims—and the claim of democracy has ever been that all men should be equal before the law. It is a democratic doctrine that ought never to be lost sight of, but will not this bird of the trade union Party come home some day to roost? Will they not be told that the democratic party which claimed equality with others wore the people who had asked for immunity when their own interests were involved? I hope I shall not lose the confidence of those with whom I have worked through many past years by speaking in the sense in which I have thus spoken. But if thus it must be, so be it, for there is a worse thing than losing the confidence of one's fellowmen, and that is to lose confidence in oneself, and such would be my loss if I gave aught of support to the fourth clause of the Bill.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in introducing this Bill made a speech to which I am sure every Member of the House listened with great interest, not only because of the lucid exposition he gave but also because of the obvious sincerity which animated his utterance. The noble and learned Lord on this bench also made a speech on the Bill, and both of those speeches were Second Reading speeches to the fullest extent. They would have satisfied most of your Lordships that there was a case for some legislation.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made out, I venture to think, a good case for a Bill, but it did not seem to me, and it does not now seem to me, that the noble and learned Lord made out a case for the Bill which is before your Lordships. We were told that the object of Clause 4 was to restore trade

  721
  unions to the actual position which they occupied before the Taff Vale decision. Those of your Lordships who are more familiar with that decision than I can pretend to be, will, I think, admit that Clause 4 introduces something which is very much larger and wider than any point covered in that decision, and gives very much wider licence to trade unions.
  The noble and learned Lord spoke of the difficulties of picketing, and the obvious inconvenience to trade unions of not being able to stand outside employers' works and peacefully persuade people to work or abstain from working. That may be reasonable, but Clause 2 makes it lawful for any number of people to go to the private houses of workpeople and there wait and beset them all day in order to peacefully persuade them. I am not in favour of the clauses as they stand, and if your Lordships see fit to amend them I shall vote for their Amendment. It is, however, my intention to vote for the Second Reading.
  I am unable to understand why your Lordships should not amend this Bill. There is one reason more than another which would justify Amendment, and that is that this is not the first mind of His Majesty's Government; this is not the considered mind of His Majesty's Government. The Bill which they introduced has been thrown over and another Bill taken up. The Bill now before your Lordships is not the Bill which was put forward by the Government as their Bill, and it appears to me that if ever there was a case when your Lordships might consider whether the Bill before you effected the objects which it was said to effect it is this case. I venture to think this Bill goes very much further than removing the grievances complained of, and I hope we shall see that it is limited to actually removing legitimate grievances.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, we listened just now to a speech from the noble and learned Lord opposite whose power of i statement and eloquence are second to but few in this House, and who certainly impressed us with the earnestness of his feelings in regard to this matter. He spoke, as others have done, as a lawyer, and it is the possession by this House of
  722
  a number of Members like himself that constitutes one of its great qualifications for dealing with a subject like this. Lawyers on a matter of this kind disentangle for us the issues and present them in a clear form; they remind us of analogous cases, of the principles which we have to respect; but I am sure noble and learned Lords themselves would say that there are cases, of which this is one, where it is eminently desirable that not the lawyers only, but members of other professions, and even, if one may say so, the plainest layman, ought to try to form some opinion. I was reinforced in that conviction by what fell from one of the greatest legal authorities in this House, the late Lord Chancellor, when he said that this is not a technical question.
  I wish to say a few words upon what seem to me the aspects of the question which go rather beyond legal considerations. One expression which the noble and learned Lord used just now was to compare the case of trade unions with the case of other bodies. He said we ought not to do for trade unions what we were not prepared to do for other bodies. That is where I feel that the argument does not really convince. It seems to me that this is a matter in which you may fairly say there is no second case. There is no second case alike in scale, in scope, in importance to the case of the claims of the organised labour of the country. The old saying runs that you cannot frame an indictment against a nation. So it seems to me you cannot treat the wage-earning classes of the country, speaking through their representatives, as one among many bodies, as one among many parties with which the law has to deal. I quite admit, of course, that that does not mean that when we come to deal with the claim of the working classes we should cast on one side all considerations of justice and give to them without scruple privileges which other classes do not possess, but I do say it requires that we should look at the matter afresh.
  What I think we ought to try to do in a matter of this kind is, first, to put ourselves into the position of those who make the claim. And when I try to do that I find, briefly, something of this kind. Those in whose interest this Bill is brought forward know that, according

  723
  to our existing system, the matters upon which their welfare depends, upon which the subsistence of themselves and of their families depends, are determined and settled practically by struggle. That is the first point, and it is, I think, an indisputable point. That these things are settled by struggle seems to me to be perfectly plain. The second point is that they feel themselves the weaker party. It is common, I think, to speak of the overwhelming weight and force of the working classes, their possession of the franchise, and the rest. My own belief is that they habitually think of themselves as the weaker party.
  I remember years ago entertaining at my own table some of the officials of a strong trade union, and I observed, not from any particular thing that they urged upon me, but from what they let drop, from their obiter dicta, that it was with them an assumption that they were, to use a common-place expression, the under dog in these controversies. They feel that they lack, as compared to those with whom when contention arises they are struggling, compactness of action. They know the ability and the powers of the great captains of industry. They feel themselves at a disadvantage there, and they feel also that they lack money resources. It is quite true that their half-crowns and their shillings run up into a large sum, but they feel, I think, that whereas in the struggle it is the abundance of others which is pinched and touched, what is pinched with them is their very life and its necessities. They feel that what can be done by employers of labour swiftly and strongly, and even secretly, can be done by themselves only slowly and cumbrously, and with difficulty. In all those ways I believe they act habitually under the sense of being the weaker party. Perhaps they think even more, and they would not be alone in thinking, that employers have in some way more coercive powers over individuals in their own class than the working classes have over their own competitors in their own class; and especially the weaker unions feel that the power of having suits directed against them, the number and strength of which it is impossible for them to forecast, and suits which may or may not be pushed home, is a constant menace to their strength and a drain
  724
  upon their powers; and this may be a most effective weapon in the hands of employers.
  Finally, they recognise that the general trend of bias in Judges and juries Is towards the other side and adverse to their own side. It has been said, not by a working man, but by a great sociologist, that a union under existing circumstances. has to fight with a halter round its neck. We have heard it to-night very eloquently said that justice is at stake, and that we are asking for the working classes what places them in an entirely privileged position. For my own part, I have a very strong belief in the sense of justice in the working classes, and I believe that when they ask for the things they are asking here they have in their mind a clear and plain answer to that plea and challenge of justice. What I conceive their answer would be is this. They would say that in the general poise and balance of the forces of society they have that against them which can only be rectified by some such immunity as is here asked for. That conviction is, I think, not unnatural on their part, but whether you think it natural or not, I would venture to say that their feeling is insuperable; you cannot get rid of it; you cannot prevent them from having it.
  If I am right in that, you are in the position of confronting those who are apprehensive about their position. Their confidence is shaken; and can anyone wonder, when we hear the history rehearsed, and how the Taff Yale decision came like a clap of thunder in a clear sky, that this attitude of apprehension has gradually increased? If you want to remedy the confidence which is shaken, there is only one real way of doing it, and that is by giving confidence on your part. I daresay most noble Lords might wish that the working classes in this matter had asked for less: we might wish that they were less apprehensive; we might desire that they should have contented themselves with the findings of the Royal Commission. More than that, it is perfectly true that if this Bill is passed, we may have some bad times to go through. It is quite true that liberty and immunity may lead to strikes, and I, for one, have heard, with the profoundest regret at this time when we are discussing this Bill, the news from the North of the dissolution of the

  725
  conciliation board in the coal trade, which, I think, was one of the very happiest advances ever made in the history of industry, and which has done so much or the welfare of all classes in the north of England. We may have something to go through, but nevertheless, my own feeling is this, that our best hope—I would almost say our only hope—of getting a really healthy and happy relation in those economic matters between the classes lies, not in the pressure of law which on the surface, but only on the surface, is exactly equal, not in the sort of restraints which, with working-class opinion in the condition that it is, chafe and raise suspicion, but rather in the self-government of the class itself, and, in particular, in the self-restraint and wisdom of the great unions in which their labour is organised. I believe myself with all my heart that the welfare of the working classes is bound up with their organisation. If we take our minds back to the earlier times, we cannot help realising that there has been a wonderful improvement on the whole in the character of industrial struggles. The barbarism which beset the earlier phases has, just in proportion as the class gained confidence, just in proportion as their apprehensions were relieved, disappeared from those struggles. I admit that it recurs sometimes. We all regret it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke words with regard to that which I hope will reach far: but progress has been made. By trusting the self-respect of a great class coming into power and conscious of the responsibility upon which it enters, you can, I believe, achieve much. At any rate, my own conviction is that that is the only way forward. Therefore, not merely grudgingly, not merely because I cannot help it, not merely because I think it will damage this House to resist, but willingly and readily I shall give my vote in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I cannot help feeling, and I think many noble Lords must feel, that to a certain extent there is an air of unreality about the proceedings in which we are engaged at the moment. We have apparently all agreed, or at any rate very nearly all agreed, that for some reason or another this Bill is to be read a
  726
  second time. The roads by which those who have spoken have arrived at that decision have boon rather diverse, but at any rate apparently every one who has spoken has come to the conclusion that there should be no division upon this stage of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack confessed to the paternity of the measure with most touching pride, and, if he will allow me to say so, I do not think this measure, indefensible as I regard it to be in some of its details, could have received a more favourable or judicious introduction to this House than that which it received at the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
  The noble and learned Lord warned us not to pick holes in the details of the Bill, because that would be a task which would be appropriate to a subsequent stage, but the main plea which the noble and learned Lord urged in favour of the Bill was that it met a just demand. The noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench agreed to a great extent with that argument, because he at any rate said that the late Government had felt that there was a case for an amendment of the law, that they had appointed a Royal Commission, and that if they had been sitting on the Benches opposite they could not have resisted a claim to deal with this subject. But the question which I want to put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and in a lesser degree to the noble Marquess, is this. Does the Bill not go further? Does it not do more than is absolutely necessary to meet that just demand? Admitting the justice of the demand, is it not likely that we shall find, when we come to discuss some of the clauses of this Bill, that there are things which it would be extravagant to describe as just? In my opinion, they are at least capable of being a machine by which great injustice may be wrought.
  I do not think that, although we pass the Second Heading of the Bill with practical unanimity, we are thereby prevented from at any rate criticising some of the proposals in the clauses and even going to the extent of amending them. All I understand by the Second Reading of a Bill is that this House admits that the present state of the law is not satisfactory. A Royal Commission has reported, and we agree that something has to be done. But I would venture

  727
  very briefly in outline to endeavour to indicate to your Lordships why I think that, in some respects at any rate, this Bill goes beyond the necessity or reasonableness of the case which has been made out. I maintain that this Bill in some of its provisions goes far to destroy two most important principles which we ought to guard with the most jealous care—principles which, to my mind, are at the very root of our Constitution and our freedom.
  I maintain that if this Bill does not destroy, it goes far to infringe the liberty of the individual, and, beyond all question, in one of its clauses—Clause 4—it absolutely destroys the equality of all His Majesty's subjects in the eye of the law. In my opinion, there are other provisions which go far to legalise what I cannot describe in milder terms than heartless cruelty and persecution, and those things may be inflicted, in pursuance of trade disputes, on all who are not within the circle of the privileged class. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that if you once abandon the principle that an individual workman should be free to join or not to join a trade union, that he should be free to do as he pleases with his own labour, you will take a step very difficult to justify and almost impossible to retrace. It is said that strikes are an evil. So they ate. All war is evil. But, admitting that strikes are a necessity of the times, and admitting that that necessity ought to be recognised, surely they ought to be conducted with due regard to the fact that we are the citizens of a civilised State, and we ought not to be relegated to a practice of private war between employer and employed, both parties being allowed to work out their vengeance one upon the other according as their strength lies.
  It has been a commonplace among the speakers to-night that what is described as peaceful picketing is not to be objected to. I doubt whether picketing is always capable of being described as peaceful, but if the Bill carried out what its promoters professed, I should not have so much objection to it. As first introduced it had a clause which specially provided that the picketing which the law sanctioned was to be done peaceably and in a reasonable manner. There were discussions in Committed as
  728
  to the number that might attend. If I remember rightly, the Attorney-General said he would accept the Amendment that picketing should be conducted by a reasonable number of people, at the same time saying he did not think it necessary, because if the practice was conducted in a reasonable and peaceable manner that implied that it should be done by a reasonable number. Not only was no effect given to promise, but on a subsequent day the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" were proposed to be left out, contrary, as I understand, to the wish of the Government and of the Attorney-General; and in the course of the speech which he as a law officer there made, nothing could be stronger than his condemnation of the very proposal which His Majesty's Government have now agreed to, and which they are now defending through the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as a just demand.
  As this Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House the expression, 'peaceful picketing,' which it is supposed to legalise, is a dishonest description of the clause as it stands—at least, it is a most misleading description. I am astounded to see put before us as a just demand a provision which legalises not exactly the breaking of a contract, but the inducing of other people to break a contract. It my humble opinion the only difference between breaking a contract oneself and inducing another person to break a contract is that the latter of the two is the meaner and more indefensible. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to an incident which occurred at Whitehaven where Irish labourers were brought over in ignorance of the circumstances existing there; and there was another case where, according to the description of the Lord Chancellor, an employer had been guilty, through sharp practice, of robbing his employees, and to get rid of that difficulty the workmen had struck and others were brought in by advertisement. I have no sympathy with either of those practices; but surely some way could have been found of meeting them other than the introduction of a clause which says that it shall be no crime to induce other persons to break a contract of employment. Those words, if they are allowed to stand, will be an absolute disgrace to the Statute Book of this country.

  729
  In my humble opinion a contract is a sacred obligation. Our commercial greatness is due largely to the fact that we regard our contracts as binding. If we recognise breaches of contract this new principle in ethics may go a great length. And is it necessary for the case? Most of these contracts are of short duration. As I understand it, the only difference that this clause would make in the conduct of a strike is this, that it would in future be lawful to induce workmen to come out at a day's notice instead of at a week or a fortnight's notice. Is that a sufficient reason for putting a declaration on our Statute Book that it is to be legal to break a contract? I give the Government every credit for desiring to check injustice, but I do say that the fourth clause of this Bill, as it stands, is creating a class privilege. Immunities of different classes have existed at varying times throughout our history. They have brought discredit on those who have been supposed to benefit by them. They have been abolished, and rightly abolished, one by one, until at the present time we can pride ourselves that every man is equal in the eye of the law. But here you are for the first time being asked by large classes of the community distinctly and by Statute to create new privileges for their benefit.
  If the Bill passes as it stands the effect will be that a sense of responsibility will be withdrawn from those who have to conduct strikes. The right rev. Prelate said that in recent years strikes have been more moderately conducted than they were before. I believe that to be the case. But, unlike him, I suggest that that is the case because wrongful acts have been restrained by law, and I ask, is it right that those who have the responsibility of guiding and organising great masses of their fellow workmen should feel that no responsability rests upon them? I think you will be going far to introduce a state of warfare when strikes unfortunately arise. What we all want to do in this matter is to produce caution and self-restraint, to produce regard for the feelings of others, and I think you are going by this Bill a very long way, not to do that, but in the contrary direction, and to give license where there ought to be restraint, and to encourage law breaking where there ought to be obedience to the law. I
  730
  feel these considerations very strongly. I could not vote with anyone who wished to throw out this Bill on Second Heading, because I admit that there is a demand for an alteration of the law as it now stands. But, at the same time, if I admit that there is a case for some alteration of the law, I hope it will not be suggested that I admit there is a case for such a Bill in all its details as that which is on the Table.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this debate has been largely carried on, very naturally and very properly, by noble and learned Lords who are far more competent than most of us to deal with the intricate and important legal points involved. But in view of the fact that the noble Lord who has just sat down is not, strictly speaking, a noble and learned Lord, although I think he might be so called as a term of general description, and in view also of the fact that the noble Marquess the Leader of Opposition intervened in the debate at an early stage, it is perhaps right that, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is unavoidably kept away to-day, I should say one or two words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  The noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne admitted that had he and his friends been sitting on these benches they would have felt it necessary to bring in some kind of legislation on this subject, and we, of course, were actuated by a similar feeling in view of the famous Taff Vale decision. In spite of everything that has been said in the course of this debate, I think it must be generally agreed that from the year 1871 up to 1901 there was a general impression throughout the country that trade unions could not be sued. The noble Marquess, in speaking of the funds of trade unions, seemed to indicate an opinion, although he did not actually express it, that the difficulty might be met by dividing the funds into benefit funds and strike funds. That is a view which has never been taken by the trade unions themselves, and I think it is right to say it has not been taken by them very largely on this ground, that they dread the building up of large funds to be explicitly devoted to strike purposes as a kind of war chest, because they believe, and, I

  731
  think, most reasonably believe, that the mere fact of the existence of a fund of that kind would make it very often difficult to avoid strikes in cases in which, under present circumstances, they might be avoided.
  Two courses were open to us, holding the view we did. One was to bring in a measure which would ensure practical immunity to trade unions by causing them to form committees which could, either by passing preliminary resolutions or by acts of subsequent repudiation, save their funds from loss caused by the acts of their officers or subordinates. That, as we believe, would have secured a very practical kind of immunity to trade unions. The alternative was to do what we have done—namely, to prohibit all actions of tort against associations either of labourers or of employers. We are not in the least ashamed to say that in adopting the latter course we were very largely swayed by the fact that the trade unions as a whole preferred the latter of those alternatives. We see nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that we placed those two alternatives before Parliament and the country; and finding, as we did, that the preference of those mostly concerned was strongly indicated in favour of the latter— although we believed that in practice there was very little difference between them—we decided accordingly to change the original proposal as submitted by my hon. friend the Attorney-General, for which, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said, he—as he had a perfect right to do — expressed as a lawyer his personal preference. I repeat, we see nothing whatever to be ashamed of in that. We decline altogether to assume the white sheet of a penitent on that ground, and we believe that the discussions which have taken place in the other House on this subject, and the very fact that the alternative propositions were brought in, have been of distinct advantage in arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the whole question.
  There is no need for me, at this hour of the evening, to say anything of the claims of trade unions to the consideration of this House, and of the public generally. Those claims, I think, are, generally speaking, admitted
  732
  by noble Lords opposite, if not quite to the same extent as by ourselves. But there are one or two points which were raised by the noble Marquess and others on which I wish to say a word. The noble Marquess seemed to think that if picketing were legalised it could not be peaceful. Surely the noble Marquess must forget that by the Act of his own Government in 1875 picketing is allowed for purposes of obtaining information, and he seems to forget also that all the provisions of that Act which prevent what is known as watching and besetting are still in force, and are not in any way interfered with by this Bill. Therefore the most disagreeable forms of picketing can no doubt be still checked. If the number of people engaged in picketing, the time at which it takes place, or the conduct of the people who carry it on—if these are of such a character as to show that not persuasion but intimidation is intended, the persons concerned will lay themselves open to the punishment which in these circumstances we all agree they ought to receive.
  But it may be asked, and I think the noble Lord who has just sat down did ask, why was it that we were not content to leave the words "in a reasonable manner" in the Bill? I confess I have been strongly impressed all through by the point of view which was stated very clearly by my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge, that in this matter trade unions know very well that when they come before a jury on a charge of this kind they cannot in the nature of the case expect to meet with a perfectly unprejudiced view. I hope I have a proper British respect for trial by jury, but nobody who has presided over the administration of Ireland for some years as I have can have an unqualified admiration for untempered trial by jury. As noble Lords opposite well know, in Ireland in troublous times, not I hope now, but in past troublous times, there were many cases in which it was exceedingly difficult to get a jury to convict. In order to get juries to convict you had either to exercise the right of challenge by the Crown to an almost ludicrous extent or the prisoner had to be taken away and tried somewhere else, where the jury, not being prejudiced in his favour, might

  733
  possibly be prejudiced against him. That is one of the cases where trial by jury to some extent breaks down; but it may break down in the reverse sense if a man is brought before the kind of special jury which my noble and learned friend described, formed of people of a different class from his own, and perhaps somewhat extra full of the prejudices of that class. Consequently, to leave in words such as. "in a reasonable manner," words upon which no standard meaning, so to speak, can be set, but which may be conceivably interpreted by people who think all picketing unreasonable and even wrong, would not be likely to load to a final settlement of this question, and therefore we were glad to eliminate the words from the Bill.
  The noble Marquess seemed to imply that he believed it was skill possible that the provisions of this Bill might apply to agrarian difficulties in Ireland. I certainly thought that the discussions which had taken place on that subject in the other House proved that that fear was groundless. If I remember aright, Sir Edward Carson expressed himself quite satisfied, from his point of view, that there was no possibility that this Bill could apply to what are known as agrarian disputes, either in Ireland, or, for the matter of that, anywhere else. The noble Marquess made a very strong speech against the Bill, but he not only followed up his attack by a declaration that he was not going to vote against the Second Reading, but he seemed to think there was a strong case for passing the Bill without any substantial Amendment; and the grounds on which the noble Marquess based that decision were that in his belief this matter had been subjected to the deliberate judgment of the country and that the country had decided in its favour as it stands.
  The noble Marquess appeared to lay down the proposition that the duty of this House is to ask itself the question in every case whether a particular measure of which it disapproves has been submitted to the deliberate judgment of the country, and, if it is able to answer that question in the affirmative, it ought to pass it. Well, my Lords, that is a proposition with which, from one point of view, everybody will agree; but we on this side of the House, I am afraid, are not
  734
  disposed to agree that the mere opinion of your Lordships on such a subject as that can be taken as entirely conclusive. That would be to make your Lordships judges in your own case. I can quite understand that the noble Marquess approves the arrangement. He dislikes all bilateral arrangements. That is preeminently a unilateral arrangement. It applies when noble Lords opposite are sitting over there, but it does not apply when they are sitting on these benches. I have never heard that the House has been asked, when the noble Marquess has been sitting hero, seriously to consider whether a particular subject had, in the form in which the noble Marquess asked the House to accept it, been submitted to the judgment of the country and approved by the country as a deliberate act. I am obliged, therefore, while rejoicing that the noble Marquess takes that view about this particular measure, to guard myself against its being supposed that we admit chat the mere judgment of noble Lords opposite as to whether a measure is, or is not, the deliberate judgment of the country, can be taken as justifying them in casting it aside if they arrive at an adverse decision.
  I trust that in this particular instance we shall arrive at agreement not merely on the lines of the Bill, but on the Bill as it stands. We have had some very melancholy forebodings as to the prospect of labour disputes in this country if this measure is passed. I cannot help thinking that in some respects the debate has been carried on by the opponents of this Bill in a very exaggerated form. All through it seems to have been assumed that members of trade unions will escape the liability to which all the rest of His Majesty's subjects have to bow. As a matter of fact, there is nothing whatever in this Bill which prevents any individual from being prosecuted criminally or having an action brought against him if he breaks the law or if he commits a wrong against a person or persons. All through that aspect of the question seems to have been ignored, and it has been assumed that we are placing these people in an entirely separate and privileged class. What is done is to place trade unions in the position in which we always believed they were— that is to say, in the position of a body

  735
  or combination of people who cannot sue or be sued. There are, as we all know, bodies of people, corporations, who can sue and be sued; there are other bodies of people, clubs and the like, who cannot; and what we do is to place trade unions in the second category. But we are bound to protest against the assumption that we take trade unionists as such and confer upon them an immunity which is not enjoyed by any other class of His Majesty's subjects.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.